BT 

III 



^ 







» > > ^ > ' 
. > > > > 






j> JV£ 



.-* 2HL 






J* 



V > 




>_> 






JO 


>. >;> 




JO 




>;> 




» 




33 



5 *>X» 






"J» >5^ 



: ap 



{LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



=£^ .' ' 



Ifi... 

4 



if UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. ! 






9> '*£> >> >■>» 
• > »» - 

J> > 



- >>>' MO) 

- > -> > *'>VL_ 

o >■>;*, 
» > 



>■■■> ^gr 






> >^>» 



Ys 



o -> S3 






>> 





>> *■ > -> 


2S»^ 


^•>^» 


> 


» •> 


> -»>3£> 


^ 


> 


» 


) ' >3^>J! > > . 


J -3SR 




>^> 


5 | Ofci " > -'. 


> > j»> > 


> 


:>^> 


v >3»;- J 


) >??>- 


7} 


X> > > 


> Jfc> 2' -3^ ' 


."> -£> 




J^> 


>> ;..> 7' V*J»> v.. 


>_» 


» > 


'•■■■>? 






, 


^ > 


1 > '> • > 


>3» 


■S* 


> > 


5 >■ > , >r 


> > z* 


*> 


: » • J> 


^ > 


•> > 



> ^ J> 



:>> :> 



>, r> ~v- . 


» 


■ - r> > •- 


>■, V} - 


J> 


^ > 


> > > - > 


" -a* 


> ~> j» 


-> > -> . «" 


■- j*» - 


. > •) } 


. > ) 3 ■ 


»-_:a> 


^ > 


^3>'5 


^ ?> 


\ > - >J 


. > ;>:> 


^^ 


:- 


o> >> > 







2> > \J 
^> ^ > 

» > ^ 



s J? 





^i* TjB 


*.• > 2> > 
>>_> ?> > 

x » > 

- > >> ;> 

> 3> > 


>> 






> > 

- 






->;>">> •$> 






fipf 


> 




> 




M 


»• 
^ 
3 


jfO-T-SO 


> ,> 


> 5> > 



> J^-^ 









> ".^. ^ 





"^fc " 






»>-'>^ "? 


T ' I ) 


JD^»'^ ^ 


^^ o 


, , .,, ■» • > > 


~> ^ ^ ^ 


y>'V3>g» ■ 


^ST-5 

,-^v^ 


s>-3»'a> 


; -^"^?i? - 


^^t J 




s^> ^^^ - 


#> ? _- > -i 



THINGS AS THEY ARE; 



OR, 



TRINITARIANISM DEVELOPED, 

SECOND PART. 



IN REPLY TO 

kC A LETTER WRITTEN IN FEBRUARY, 1815, TO THE 
REV. JACOB NORTON, OF WEYMOUTH, AND NOW 
PUBLISHED WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAIN- 
ING SOME NOTES AND REMARKS, BY DANIEL 
THOMAS, A. M. PASTOR OF THE SECOND 
CHURCH IN ABING10NJ 

TOGETHER WITH 

A FEW INCIDENTAL REMARKS ON SEVERAL PAS- 
SAGES OF A SERMON PREACHED AT THE IN- 
STALLATION OF THE REV. HOLLAND WEEKS, 
OVER THE FIRST CHURCH AND SOCIETY IN 
ABINGTON, ON THE NINTH OF AUGUST, 
1815. BY NATHANIEL EMMONS, D.D. PAS- 



1 



BY JACOB NORTON, A. M. 

Pastor of the First Religious Society in Weymouth. 



f Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, 
in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus." 

ci But speaking the truth in love." , . . . paui.. 



J BOSTON : 

Printed for the Author, 

BY LINCOLN & EDMANDS, NO. 53, CORNHILL 
J815. 






* 



HEV. SIR, 

I HAVE lately received from you through the hands 
of the Rev. Mr. Perkins, a pamphlet entitled, " A letter 
written in February, 18.15, to the Rev. Jacob Norton, of 
Weymouth, occasioned by a verbal communication that 
he had made to the Association of which he was a mem- 
ber, and now published, in consequence of his hav- 
ing issued a printed reply to it. Together with an ap- 
pendix, containing some remarks. By Daniel Thomas, 
A. M. Pastor of the second church in Abington." 

This pamphlet, Sir, I have attentively read, and I 
hope with a spirit of candor and impartiality. With 
the same spirit I shall endeavour to remark on the most 
prominent parts of it. 

It is with painful emotions and almost insuperable re- 
luctance, that I engage in this unpleasant business, from 
fear that I may utter any thing rashly, or which may not be 
strictly correct, or which may operate to your injury, or 
to the injury of our holy and beneficent religion. 

To these evils controversial writers are not a little lia- 
ble ; and but too often are they justly chargeable with 
them. Carefully to guard against them has ever been 
my object, and I would hope, not without some good 
degree of success. Of this, however, the impartial and 
intelligent reader is the best judge. 

Sensible of my own exposure to the errors which I 
think ^ I discover in other controversial writers, I dare 
promise, neither myself nor my reader, that I shall not be 
guilty of the same ; nor indeed can I indulge the hope, 
that the ^ strictures which I am about to make on your 
letter, will, in all respects, be free from error. All that 
I can venture to engage and hope is, that in making them, 
no misrepresentation will designedly b made — that noth- 
ing will drop from my pen but what appears to me nec- 
essary, either directly, or more remotely, to the vindication 
of my own character, the support of truth, the correction 
of mistakes and errors, and the promotion of correct 
knowledge, and the cause of pure and undented Christiani- 
ty. — That the Fountain of all wisdom and truth may 
guide my mind and my pen to these desirable and impor- 
tant ends, is my heart's desire and sincere prayer. 



4 

In remarking on your letter, &c. I shall attend to 
the several parts according to their arrangement. The 
article 

TO THE PUBLIC, 
Claims my first attention. — This article states, that in 
the month of March last, 1 wrote to him (the Rev. Mr. 
Thomas) that I was preparing for the press an answer to a 
letter which he had previously sent me, which letter also, 
with his consent, I proposed to publish — that he informed 
me he should not consent to its publication — that after 
this, at a meeting of the association, I laid his letter and 
my answer before them — that I gave the association to 
understand, that although I might publish the substance 
of what I had written on the Trinity, yet that every thing 
of a personal nature should be suppressed — that since that 
period, however, my letter has appeared, notwithstanding 
my declaration to the contrary, in which I have dealt very 
liberally in personalities, and personalities too, that are 
highly reprehensible — and that I have published a number 
of extracts from the very letter, to the publication of which 
he had explicitly refused his assent. — To these statements, 
1 have to reply, that they are correct in part, and, I am 
persuaded, in part only. That I expressed a wish, to the 
Rev. Mr. Thomas, to publish his manuscript letter, in 
connection with my answer to it, — and that he refused his 
consent, I readily acknowledge^ And that I afterwards 
exhibited his letter to the Association, with his consent, 
and as I supposed by their desire, is also true ; but that I 
made any engagement to them, or to Mr. Thomas, with 
respect either to his letter or mine, which I have in the 
least degree violated^ I cannot, consistently with truth, 
admit. — To Mr. T. individually and personally, I have 
no recollection ^ of having made any engagement, or even 
insinuation, with respect to the subject. All that I can 
recollect respecting the subject, is, that in consideration of 
certain circumstances,which in the proper place will be no- 
ticed, I intimated to the Association, Mr. T. being present, 
that I probably should not publish those parts of my letter, 
relating to " incorrect statements and exceptionable pas- 
sages" in his, peculiarly of a personal nature.* — This 
intimation, I well recollect having made to the Associa- 
tion ; nor with design, however I might have been under- 
stood, did I intimate more. And I can now say, my con- 
science bearing me witness to the truth of it, that, in pub- 
lishing my letter, I strictly adhered to the spirit and de- 
sign of whatever was implied in the intimation. As to 
the hi -hi *r ref)rehensible personalities, with which my 
printed letter abounds, I have nothing more to say than 

* See Appendix, No. 1. 



that I am perfectly willing that every candid and intelligent 
reader should judge for himself in relation to the subject* 
With respect to the extracts from Mr. T's letter, to which 
he says, he explicitly refused his assent, I have nothing 
more to say than that I neither know, nor can make any 
satisfactory conjecture what he intends by it. 

The article under consideration further states — that a 
supposition has been made that Mr. T. wrote to me as 
the organ of the Association* from a desire, as is believed, 
to exonerate me from the charge of disingenuousness, 
which would otherwise fasten upon me. This supposi- 
tion he observes is unfounded. — In reply to it, I have 
only to say. that I knew not till I read this article, that the 
supposition above stated did exist — that I am desirous 
of no support which such a feeble prop might be supposed 
to give to my character in point of ingenuousness — that 
I cannot conceive, if it ^vere well-founded, it could in 
the least degree vindicate my character from any charge 
of disingenuity, and that, for the reputation of my lately 
associated brethren, it is my hope that the supposition 
will gain no credit. 

The article under consideration again states — " The 
man who has thus given publicity to such parts of the 
letter (Mr. T's.) as suited his purpose, was careful first 
to inform his readers that there were " several incorrect 
statements, and exceptionable passages" in it, which I, 
(Mr. T.) ' in a personal interview' with him, had explain- 
ed and qualified. This declaration of his, (Mr. N's.) is 
calculated to make such impressions on the public mind 
respecting my (Mr. T's.) conduct, as are highly improper 
and injurious." — If Mr. T. in this quotation is to be 
understood as denying, or even insinuating that he did not, 
at the time alluded to, explain and qualify the passages in 
question, I much regret it, as I certainly understood him 
so to have done, and from a clear and constraining sense 
of duty. Believing as I did, that he really qualified and 
explained those passages according to the statement in my 
letter, and that he was under the most unquestionable ob- 
ligation to do it, I felt no small satisfaction in discovering 
in him a disposition, as I then thought I did, to acknowl- 
edge his errors and mistakes. This I considered as highly 
honorary to him as a christian brother. Nor do I see that 
the statement which I made of this supposed fact, would 
in any degree be " improper and injurious." Indeed, I 
sincerely think that the statement, should Mr. T. admit it 
as correct, would be greatly in his favour. 

In the concluding paragraph of this article, Mr. T. 
charges me with making an ungenerous attack upon his 



character. Whether the charge is well founded will 
probably appear, to the satisfaction of the reader, in the 
course of the following pages. I have only to say at pres- 
ent, that if < I have made such an attack, it was certainly 
without design, nor am I, in the least degree, conscious of 
having " done the deed." 

In this connexion I beg leave briefly to state that the 
publication of my letter, of which Mr. T. complains as an 
ungenerous attack upon his character, so far as respects 
himself, resulted from the existence of several imperative 
circumstances.— That gentleman, with several other of 
my brethren, with whom I had been in the habit of minis- 
terial intercourse by exchanges of professional labours, 
had for a considerable^ length of time denied me that inter- 
course without assigning any definite reason for the denial. 
My people, as might well be expected, made the inquiry, 
" Why is ministerial intercourse&etween our minister and 
these his brethren suspended ?" To this inquiry I was able 
to give no definite answer. Conjectures were probably 
made, and surmises entertained to our mutual disadvan- 
tage. — Under these circumstances I received assurance 
from my brother Thomas, in a letter, which he addressed 
to me in the month of February last, that " it was solely 
on account of the ground I had taken with relation to 
Christ, and to the Holy Spirit, that he had been constrain- 
ed to suspend exchanges with me." — I now for the Jirst 
time considered myself authorized to state what was the 
ground of that suspension. — And as the suspension was 
a matter of notoriety, it appeared to me but right to make 
the ground of it equally notorious* This I have done, and 
as I conceive, in a fair and unexceptionable manner. But 
if Mr. T. thinks that I have done wrong in making this 
exposure in the manner I have done it, why, but to retali- 
ate, has he published, and without requesting my consent, 
his letter of Feb. 3, and especially those parts of it, which 
are of a personal nature, in his own sense of the terms ? 
If in publishing a few things which Mr. T. considers 
personal, I have " ungenerously attacked his character,' ■ 
what has he to offer in vindication of his own conduct, in 
publishing many things of that description, and unaccom- 
panied too with any light by which his readers could 
decide as to their correctness ! 

This letter, no part of which Mr. T. will allow he had 
explained or qualified, as I understood him honorably to 
have done, I here place before the reader, with the sub- 
stance of the remarks which I had made, on the incorrect 
and exceptionable passages it contains, and which I 
■declined to publish, as has already been noticed. 



LETTER. 

Abington, Feb. 3, 1815, 
Rev. Sir, 

MY writing to you at this time, is occasioned by the commu- 
nication which you made to the Association, at their last meeting. 
I have doubted the expediency of writing to you on the subject ; 
but my doubts being in a measure removed, 1 have at length 
concluded to say something concerning several things contained 
in that communication. How my thoughts upon the subject 
will be received, 1 know not ; but 1 hope, that neither their na- 
ture, nor the manner of expressing them, will be such as to give 
any ju6t occasion for censure or complaint. Should 1 fail in this, 
1 shall miss my aim, which certainly is not to increase those very 
difficulties subsisting between us, that have been, and still are to 
me, a source of inexpressible grief, a«d which 1 ardently desire 
may be speedily settled. 

When, Sir, I heard you state your leading sentiments in divini- 
ty ; declare that you had believed them nearly forty years ; and 
signify that you had, since becoming a preacher, uniformly in-* 
culcated them from the pulpit, 1 was constrained to ask myself 
such questions as the following : If in his youth, if at the time of 
his studying divinity, and at the time of his ordination, Mr. Nor- 
ton did believe the doctrines of total depravity, divine decrees, 
eternal personal election, regeneration by special divine influence, 
the perseverance of the saints, and the like, why have I been so 
often informed, that, at those periods, the impression among the 
people in the place of his nativity, and among his acquaintance, 
was, that he did not believe all these doctrines, that he was not 
fully in sentiment with the Rev. Mr. Niles, that he was not an 
Hopkinsian ? Have I been misinfoimed on this subject ? If not, 
were his most intimate acquaintance deceived respecting his re- 
ligious tenets in those days ? Further, if Mr. Norton does now 
preach the doctrines above-mentioned, which I know he did preach 
in a very distinguished manner, when 1 first became acquainted 
with him, and for the preaching of which, I know also that he was, 
violently opposed by many, whence comes it to pass, that persons 
who then thus strongly opposed him, appear now to be well satis- 
fied with him as a preacher ? Surely, thought 1, either he must 
have altered his strain of preaching, or a great and happy change 
must have taken place in their views and feelings : It the former ; 
it contradicts his assertion ; if the latter, why do they appear as 
much opposed as ever to the doctrines, and say, as seme of them 
do, * Mr. Norton does not preach such hard things as formerly, 
but softens down, and is now pretty correct V And, admitting 
the correctness of that part of the communication to which I am 
attending, why is it, that some serious people, who, six years ago, 
were delighted with your discourses, are now grieved to find, as 
they think they do, that your strain of preaching and conversation, 
aside from the subject of Christ, is different from what it or ce 
was, tending to create in their minds strong suspicions, that you 
are gradually departing from that great system of truth, of which 
they had viewed you a strenuous and able defender ? To me, I 
confess, there is in these things something dark and mysterious, 



and which I should gladly see cleared up. In this, it is presumed 
I am not alone. 

After saying some things with respect to your views of Christ, 
you charge the Association with having considered you an here- 
tic k, and rejected you. 1 well remember the discussion to which 
you refer, and on which you ground the correctness of your 
charge. It took place at the Rev. Mr. Richardson V, in April 
last. I think not more than three of the Association said things 
in that discussion, from which it could be inferred, that they 
considered him an heretick, who denies the Supreme Deity of 
Christ. Three -numbers were not a majority. Admitting, there- 
fore, that those three considered you an heretic, there was no evi- 
dence at the time, that the Association as a body did. But, Sir, 
if those three then said things which implied that they viewed 
arianism an heresy, so also did you say that which implied that 
you viewed trinitarianism an heresy. For I well rem* mber that 
you then made a remark to this effect ; « If there be any such 
thing as heresy, trinitarianism approaches the nearest to it, per- 
haps, of any thing that can be named.' I pretend not to quote 
your words exactly, but feel confident that I have given the 
sense, as the remark made a strong impression on my mind. 
If, therefore, the three persons above-mentioned, considered you 
an heretick, and rejected you ; I should say that you also consid- 
ered them as heretioks, and rejected them, if vou believe that there 
is any sueh thing in existence as heresy. Hence, if the^ at that 
time rejected you without, admonition, as you seem to think, yeu 
then did the same with respect to them. It follows, therefore, 
that the censure, which in your communication, you pass ou 
then, falls also on yourself. 

You informed us, that some of the members had refused to 
exchange with vou, and when requeste ! to-give you their reasons 
in writing, had refused to do it. Here, I suppose, you had exclu- 
sive reference to Dr. Strong and myself. In November, 1813, 
when the Association was at your house, he and I did inform vou, 
that, under existing circumstances, we felt that we could not 
consistently exchange with you at present. You requested us to 
give you our reasons in writing. This we refused. But we did 
not refuse to give them verbally. This circumstance ought not 
to have been omitted in your communication. While a part of 
the truth respecting the matter was told, a part of it was suppress- 
ed ; which was calculated to make a wrong impression on the 
minds of those unacquainted with the subject. 

In your communication, I thought you clearly discovered a 
disposition to censure people in many places, because they would 
not read your books; and at the same time complained, that in 
such places, your sentiments respecting Christ were grossly mis- 
represented, that you was considered as maintaining that he i* no 
more than a mere man. Whether people are criminal for refusing 
to read vour books, is a question which I deem quite unnecessary 
at present to discuss Whether you suppose that some members 
of this Association have misrepresented vour sentiments to their 
people, who wil] r.ot read vour writings, 1 know not. But cer- 
tainly, your introducing the subject in the manner you did, gives 



me reason to suspect that you suppose so, and that you intended, 
id Over , to censure such members. For otherwise, I 

cannot see why the subject was mentioned at all, in a communica. 
tion made professedly and particularly to the Association. I 
shad iot attempt to answer tor others ; but for myself, I can 
assure you, that I have not misrepresented your sentiments, 
either to my own people,- or to any others. 1 nave ofteu been 
asked in this and various oilier places, what your sentiments are 
concerning- Christ ; and have never, in my answers, once intimat- 
ed tha' you consider inm no more than a mere ma.i ; but burnt 
uniformly represented you as believing that he is what you make 
him HO your writings. Nor do I believe, that there is a single 
person in my parish, or iu tms town, who considers you a Socmian, 
who considers you, what I have often heard you pronounce Trin- 
itarians to be. I know it would >e ungenerous and unfair, to say 
the least, were / to call you a Socinian. It is no less ungenerous 
and unfair, for you to cail Trinitarians so. I think, Sir, iiat 
you, who believe that Christ, in his highest character, is inferior to 
the Deity, ought to be the last man to complain for being charg- 
ed with Soeioianism, since you so often charge it upon those wtio 
hold, that Christ, in his highest character, is the supreme Jehovah. 
In your communication, after expressing your surprize, that in 
my discourse at Dr. Strong's funeral, 1 pronounced him a Trini- 
tarian, you informed us, that my assertion £ must have been made 
through ignorance, or else it was a wilful misrepresentation.' 
You then told us, among other things, that you f knew the de- 
ceased was not a Trinitarian.' Permit me, Sir, in my turn, to 
express my surprize at this assertion of yours. For I venture to 
affirm, that all the members of the Association, except yourself, 
will not hesitate to say, that they firmly believe Dr. Strong was a 
Trinitarian ; and that they believe this from his own express and 
positive declarations, which they themselves have heard him make 
repeatedly, time after time, for years, and especially during the 
last year of his life. Indeed, if you can bring one witness, as 5 ou 
say you can, to prove your assertion, 1 can bnug hundreds to 
prove mine. lean bring, not only the Association of which the 
deceased was a member, but the Society of which he was minister, 
and multitudes of his intimate acquaintance in other places. I 
am, Sir, the more astonished at your assertion, that you knew the 
deceased was not a Trinitarian, because I have so often heard 
him, in your presence, solemnly declare his firm belief in the doc- 
trine of the Trinity ; and this he sometimes evidently did, be- 
cause you seemed to doubt whether he believed it. But he is 
gone. He can no longer speak for himself; aud now you say, 
you knew he was nor a Trinitarian ; and because I affirmed that 
he was, you tax me with ignorance, or wilful misrepresentation I 
Doubtless 1 am ignorant, but not of Dr. Strong's sentiments on 
this subject ; and had I represented them as you do, I should 
then have been really guilty of wilful misrepresentation, and 
should have injured both the dead and the living. On this ground 
you might in justice have charged me as you did. But as it is, 
I roust plainly tell you, that I view \hat charge as cruel. This s 

P 



10 

Sir, is not the way to repair breaches. This is not the way to hea'l 
wounds. This is not the way to promote harmony, peace and 
love. I think I feel willing to be admonished for my faults. 
But it seems hard to be censured for honestly stating, at a proper 
time, an important fact, of which there is the most plenary evidence. 

With respect to the admonitory part of your communication, I 
shall add but little to what 1 have already said. Your meeting 
with the Association, and occasionally exchanging with a majority 
of the members, proves that they have not rejected you as an 
heretiek. Hence your complaint, that they have rejected you 
without admonition, is unfounded. 

With respecL to myself, I verily believe that those who deny 
the supreme Deity of Jesus Christ, however exalted a being 
they may suppose him to be, are in a great and dangerous error. 
You know, Sir, that you have denied that he is God, in the high- 
est sense of that word ; and have strenuously defended, both by 
conversation, and writing, and preaching, a scheme which is sub- 
stantially avian. And believing, as I do, that on this subject, 
you have imbibed and endeavoured to propagate dangerous er- 
rors, I have uniformly laboured to convince you of them ; and, 
if not in a formal and explicit manner, yet implicitly have ad- 
monished you with tenderness, and as I hope, with real desires 
for your best good. 

It is solely on account of the ground you have taken with 
relation to Christ, and to the Holy Spirit, that I have been con- 
strained to suspend exchanges with you, in the hope, which hope 
I am yet unwilling to relinquish, that you would finally leave that 
ground, and our former intercourse be restored. Most gladly 
should I have refrained from taking that step, which was in itself 
most painful to me, had I thought that 1 could have refrained from 
it consistently with duty. And could I believe that the difference 
of sentiment between us is merely verbal, or circumstantial and 
unimportant, I should rejoice this day in giving you an invitation 
to preach to my people. 

It is not my object at present to discuss the subject, concern- 
ing which we so widely differ. Nor is it necessary, because in 
our Associations, much of our time, too much perhaps, has 
already been spent upon it for years. 

As I am persuaded, dear Sir, that you have embraced most 
dangerous and destructive errors, I must solemnly warn you 
against them. And I entreat and " beseech you by the meek- 
ness and gentleness of Christ," to renounce that scheme, which 
I verily believe is subversive of his gospel, and tends to tc drown 
men in destruction and perdition." So far as I know myself, I 
say these things, not from ill-will, nor with the least desire to 
irritate, but with deep concern and most ardent desires for your 

food, both in time and to eternity. And I pray Him, to whom 
tephen prayed with his dying breath, to lead us both into the 
truth respecting his character, and to make us faithful in his 
cause unto death. 

With due respect, I am, dear Sir, 

Your sincere friend, 
Kev, Jacob Norton. DANIEL THOMAS. 



THE REMARKS, 

CONNECTED WITH EXTRACTS. 



IN the second paragraph of Mr. T's. letter, he ob- 
serves, — " When, Sir, I heard you, (Mr. N.) state your 
leading sentiments in divinity ; declare that you had believ- 
ed them nearly forty years ; and signify that you had, since 
becoming a preacher, uniformly inculcated them from the 
pulpit, I was constrained to ask myself such questions as 
the following" 

[To these questions the reader will advert, and judge for 
himself as to their insinuation and design.] 

In reply to this quotation, I have to observe — that I 
have no recollection of having said or pretended that my 
religious sentiments were the same, " nearly forty years 

East," as they are at present, but in a qualified manner, 
owever I may have been understood. I am free to 
confess, as I often have done, that my sentiments respect- 
ing the Son, and the Spirit of God, and several other 
subjects, are different from what they were within the 
compass of thirty years. And I am willing to add, that 
my sentiments relative to those subjects are not exactly' 
the same they were ten, or even live years past. I nev- 
ertheless " declare" that my leading sentiments in divini- 
ty are now, (so far as I am able to make a just comparison 
between them) essentially the same they were at the time, 
and even before I " became a preacher ;" and that so far 
as I can judge, I have " uniformly inculcated them. " That 
I made a statement like this to the Association, I distinct- 
ly recollect ; nor do I think that the statement varied from 
this, excepting merely in words. Willingly would I 
now make the state inent verbatim and entire, which I 
then made; but this is impracticable. 



12 

• You observe in the second paragraph of your letter, 
that in my communication to our associated brethren, 1 
" charged them with having considered me an heretick, 
and rejected me." From this charge, as you term it, you 
take occasion to remark as follows — " I think not more 
than three of the Association said things in that discussion, 
from which it could be inferred that they considered him 
an heretick, who denies the supreme deity of Christ. 
Three members were not a majority. Admitting, there- 
fore^ that those three considered you an heretick, there was 
no evidence, at the time, that the Association as a body 
did. 5 '- — In what light, Sir, am I to consider the conclusion 
of 5 7 our syllogistical reasoning ? Am I to consider it as 
charging me with falsehood ? That you intended I should 
thus consider it, I am very unwilling to believe ; and jet 
I see not how r I can disbelieve it. If I really charged the 
Association with having considered and rejected me as 
an heretick, as you say I did ; and yet if there was no 
evidence at the time to which you refer that the Associa- 
tion as a body did consider and reject me as an heretick, 
it requires no great discernment to see that my charge was 
no* founded in truth. — As I consider this charge of too 
serious a nature to be passed unnoticed, I beg leave in 
my own vindication to say, that a majority of the Asso- 
ciation had considered and rejected me as an heretick, in 
the precise sense of the charge alleged against them. In 
speaking of them, or any of them as considering and 
treating me as an heretick, / have ever referred to their 
refusal of me as a christian brother, by closing against me 
the coors of their pulpits. And that you, Sir, and our 
other brethren, at the last meeting of our Association, un- 
derstood me as conveying this, and no other idea, I did be- 
lieve, and without the shadow of a doubt. If you under- 
stood me otherwise, I know not how to account for it, and 
especially as I observed, at that time, that I would not be 
understood as saying that the Association, as a body, had, 
in a formal manner, rejected me. 

A little subsequent to the last quotation I made from 
your letter^ you observe — " If therefore the three persons 
above mentioned, considered you an heretick, and rejected 
yen, I should say that you also considered them as hereticks, 
and rejected them, if you believe there is any such thing in 
existence as heresy. Hence, if they at that time rejected 
you without admonition, as you seem to think, you then 
did the same with respect to them. It follows, therefore, 
that the censure, which, in your communication you pass 
on them, for so doing, falls also on yourself." — Whether 
this mode of reasoning, is, in your view, satisfactory and 



13 

conclusive, I pretend not to say. But this I can with 
perfect sincerity and truth say, that in my estimation it is 
very far from being either satisfactory, or possessing any 
force i nor do I see any reason that you should not view 
the subject as I do. How, I desire to know, have I re- 
jected the brethren of our Association to whom you al- 
lude *? By expressing, the xvish, to maintain ministerial 
intercourse and fellowship with them ? If vsx^any other 
sense I have rejected them, I am certainly ignorant of it. 

The next passage in _ your letter, which I consider as 
deserving particular notice is this — " You informed us 
(the Association) that some of the members had refused 
to exchange with you, and when requested to give you 
their reasons in writing, had refused to do it. Here I 
suppose you had exclusive reference to Dr. Strong and 
myself — he and I did inform you that under existing cir- 
cumstances, we felt that we could not consistently ex- 
change with you at present. You requested us to give 
you our reasons in writing. This we refused. But we 
did not refuse to give them verbally. This circumstance 
ought not to have been omitted in your communication. 
While a part of the truth respecting the matter was told, 
a part of it was suppressed, which was calculated to make 
a wrong impression, &c." That I requested you and the 
late Dr. Strong to give me your reasons, in writing, for 
your refusal to exchange with me, agreeably to your 
statement, is correct. But that in making this observa- 
tion, I told but part of the truth respecting the matter, 
which ought to have been told ; or that I suppressed 
truth, and in such a manner as was likely to make a wrong 
impression on the mind of any person, who heard my 
communication, I do not see, nor can I admit. Accord- 
ing to your own statement,ury request to you was that you 
would give me your reasons in writing, and that you 
refused f to do it. Now because I observed that you refus- 
ed to give written reasons, does it follow that I insinuated, 
you did not give verbal ones ? If what I said on the subject 
involved any insinuation, _ it must, it should seem, have 
been this — that you did give verbal reasons. And you are 
too well acquainted with the import and force of language, 
I should think, not to see and acknowledge the correctness 
of this remark. But however this may be, you will 
permit me to say that I meant to speak the truth, and 
undisguisedly " respecting the matter ;" nor do I discov- 
er any thing, even in your own statement, which leads me 
to believe, or suspect that I did not. 

The greater part of the paragraph in your letter which 
immediately follows the last quotation, " I deem quite 



14 

unnecessary at present to discuss." A few passages only, 
I shall notice. 

That I have " censured people in many places, because 
they would not read my books," I do not admit. I hope, 
however, that I may be permitted to say, and without 
offence, that if they were more extensively read, the truths 
•which they contain would be more extensively known — 
the sentiments of their author would be better understood, 
and his design of promoting the cause of truth, and of 
vindicating christian liberty, would be likely to be carried, 
more fully into effect. That in " some places my senti- 
ments respecting Christ have been grossly misrepresented, 
and that I have been considered as maintaining that he is 
no more than a mere man," I have probably expressed as 
my belief. And that this, and much more than this has 
indeed been the case, I have the most unambiguous and 
plenary evidence. And that this eyidence would be 
irresistibly convincing to multitudes, if they would but 
seek it where it is to be found, I have not the shadow of a 
doubt. Whether any members of our Association have 
been instrumental to this misrepresentation, as you say I 
have suggested, in a " covert way," I will not perempto- 
rily decide ; but that this has really been the case I have 
but too much reason very strongly to suspect. In saying 
this, however, I would not be understood as insinuating 
that they have " done the deed," either with evil intent or 
with design. I am willing to believe they have not. And 
that you, Sir, " have not misrepresented my sentiments, 
either to your own people, or to any others, I wish to be- 
lieve. Nor would I insinuate that you have designedly 
done it. But that you have made no misrepresentations 
of me and of my sentiments, (nowever undesignedly) I 
can by no means believe. 

You have die -andour to say, that you " know it would 
be ungenerous and unfair, to say the least, were you to 
call me a Socinian." — To be sure it would be, as you 
could not call me so consistently with truth. But is it 
generous and fair in you to say, that you " have often 
heard me pronounce Trinitarians to be" Socinians ? — I 
certainly have no recollection of ever having made this 
declaration to you, or in your hearing, or to any other 
person. I well remember, however, to have said, that 
while I did not charge them with being Socinians, I was 
unable to discover any real, or essential difference between 
r I rmitarianism and Sochiianism in relation to the charac- 
ter of Christ. I must believe, Sir, that you have never 
heard me Sc-.y that Trinitarians are Socinians, but in this 
qualified sense. And is it not true, that the theory of 



15 

each sect, acknowledges Christ to be a man, who, as to 
his " true body and reasonable soul," began to exist in 
the reign of Augustus Cesar, the Roman emperor ? — 
that he was enabled to perform miracles, because God was 
with him, or united to him ?— that he suffered and died 
on the cross, and that God raised him from the dead, and 
highly exalted him ? — We find, indeed, a verbal difference 
in the two theories ; but that the difference is real, and of 
any consequence, I confess, I do not see. Thus much I 
have repeatedly said, nor do I think that, in substance, 
you have ever heard me say more. 

At the beginning of the next paragraph in your letter, 
you say — " In your communication, after expressing 
your surprise that in my discourse at Dr. Strong's funeral, 
I pronounced him a Trinitarian, you informed us that my 
assertion must have been made through ignorance, or else 
it was wilful misrepresentation." — The truth of this state- 
ment, when duly qualified, I readily admit. But the 
charge of wilful misrepresentation I did not allege against 
you, whether you were guilty of it or not. I did, however, 
express it as my belief, that through ignorance you had 
stated an error. And of this, I have now not the least 
doubt, unless Dr. Strong's sentiments of the Trinity, and 
particularly with respect to the character of Jesus Christ, 
were different, a short time before his death, from what 
they had been some time previously to that event. You 
say, also, that I affirmed I " knew that the deceased was 
not a Trinitarian." — But in what sense, Sir, did I speak of 
this our deceased brother, as not having been a Trinitarian? 
Did I not distinctly say, that as Trinitarianism is con- 
strued in a variety of ways, I would be understood as 
representing him a dissentei* from the doctrine, as stated in 
the Assembly's Catechism, which represents the Son of 
God as uniting himself to a man, whose existence com 
menced somewhat more than eighteen centuries past, 
which doctrine I considered as unadulterated Trinitarian- 
ism. These, probably, are not precisely the words which 
I used ; but that they comprise the substance of what I 
said before the Association on the subject, I fully believe ; 
nor do I think that you will question the correctness of 
this statement. In this connexion, I think it my duty to 
add, that not long before his death, a gentleman of un- 
questionable veracity has repeatedly said, and who is 
ready to affirm under the solemnity of an oath, " that Dr. 
S. observed to him he was not a Trinitarian, and that he 
knew not but my sentiments in relation to the doctrine of 
the Trinity, were true." — And that he was considered as 
being in sentiment with me on this subject, some time 



16 

before his death, by a number of his brethren m the minis- 
try, and others, who were intimately conversant with him, 
is a truth not to be questioned.* 

In making these statements, of the truth of which I have 
not the least doubt, my object most certainly is, neither 
to " injure the dead nor the living.*' Neither is it my de- 
sign to insinuate that the late Dr. Strong is not to be 
considered as having been a Trinitarian in any sense of 
the word. '•■ I would be understood only to say that he was 
not a Trinitarian; as were the framers of the Westminster 
catechism ; as the professors in the r I neological Institu- 
tion at Andover, and the " General Association in Massa- 
chusetts," profess to be. Nor, I will add, was he a Trin- 
itarian, in the Hop/rinsian sense of the word. 

You will not question, I presume, that the Westmin- 
ster assembly of divines were Trinitarians, or that the 
Theological professors at Andover, or that the General 
Association, are, professedly, believers in the doctrine 
of the^ Trinity, as stated in the " Assembly's Shorter 
Catechism." Nor will you question that the late venerable 
Dr. S. Hopkins was strtethj a Trinitarian. ^ But did our 
late brother believe in the doctrine of the Trinity as stated 
either in the catechism, or the writings of Dr. H. ? This 
Sir, you will not pretend, as you well know, that Dr. 
Strong believed that the human or created soul of Christ, 
(as he expressed it) existed before the foundation of the 
world ; and that this was the only human soul which ever 
belonged to his person. But this view of Christ is not 
exhibited in the Assembly's Catechism. It is indeed a 
view of Christ very repugnant to the Trinitarian theory, 
and directly opposite to the view of Dr. Hopkins. 

According to this writer, " The human nature of Christ 
began to exist, when it was conceived in the virgin Mary, 
and not before. The Scripture history of his conception 
and birth, or the incarnation, and all that is said of it, 
(the Dr. observes) naturally leads to this conclusion. 
The reader will have no other idea suggested to his mind, 
unless he has some particular end to answer by rejecting 
it, &c." " Such there have been in former ages, and 
such there are now in the christian world, who are con- 
fident that the soul, or rational creature, which was united 
to a body in the incarnation, did not then begin to exist, 
but is the first creature that was made, &c." < This senti- 
ment Dr. Hopkins decidedly opposes as having no foun- 
dation in scripture. HeuVnadds, " The doe trine of the 
pre-existence of the soul of Jesus Christ, or of that created 
nature which took a body in the womb of the virgin 
Mary, appears first to be invented and propagated by 

See Appendix, No. %, 



17 

Arius, in the fourth century, and since his time, by his 
followers, &c." (Hopkins' System, Vol. I. 2d ed. p. 550.) 

There are others, especially of late, who, though they 
profess to believe that Jesus Christ is God, in a sense in 
which the Arians deny it ; and that the human nature has 
a personal union with the Deity ; yet hold with the Arians, 
that the created nature of the Redeemer, his body except- 
ed, existed before his incarnation, and was the first crea- 
ture that was created, &c." (p. 351.) This view of the 
subject, the Dr. observes, " appears to be contrary to the 
current of scripture, and of a dangerous and bad tenden- 
cy." (p. 354.) Again, " This supposed first and greatest 
creatine cannot, with any propriety or truth, be called a 
human soul, more than ai \y other supposeable, 6r possible 
creature, that could be made ; nor would his union to a 
human body make him any more a human soul, than if 
he were not so united. " (p. 355.) Such, Sir, were the 
views of Dr. H. respecting the " doctrine of the pre-exist- 
ence of the soul of Jesus Christ," a doctrine which our 
deceased brother firmly believed. Nor do you doubt, I 
presume, that he believed it to the day of his death. 

Now, Sir, since # Dr. Hopkins and other Trinitarian 
writers, generally, if not universally, consider this doc- 
trine as anti- Trinitarian, can you reasonably charge me* 
with injuring the dead and the living, because I represent- 
ed Dr. Strong as Dr. Hopkins and other Trinitarian wri- 
ters have done, an anti-trinitarian ? Or can you justify 
yourself, in having unqualifiedly asserted, on a very sol- 
emn and public occasion, that he was a Trinitarian, and in 
persisting in that assertion ? Shall I praise you in this ? I 
praise you not. 

Never, Sir, I presume, have I represented Dr. Strong, 
by apy means so forcibly as an anti -tvimt-armn, and as 
heretical in this respect, as he is represented by Dr. Hop- 
kins, who, in addition to the above quotations, in speaking 
of the doctrine of the " pre-existence of the soul of 
Christ," plainly intimates that the theory of our late 
brother, makes th;]t " holy thing" born of the Virgin 
Mary, a " monster /" His words are, " Mary's concep- 
tion of her Son did imply the conception of soul and 
body, otherwise she could not be said to conceive a Son. 
She who conceives and brings forth a son, is as really, 
and as much the mother of his soul, as of his body, and 

* To charges and misrepresentations of this kind it was probably ow- 
ing, that the respectable society of our highly respected deceased brother, 
were led to treat several ot the Association, at his interment, who had. 
been his most intimate and friendly associates, with marks of poinied 
discourtesy aud neglect. 

c 



18 

the former is conceived and formed in her womb as much 
as the latter ; and is the greater and chief part of the 
child or son ; yea, the most essential part, without which, 
he would not be a son ; but a monster" (p. 355.) Broth- 
er Strong, you well know, did believe, that the soul of 
Christ was created and not conceived and formed in the 
womb of the virgin Mary. If then, Dr. Hopkins' theory 
be correct, must not that holy thing which Dr. Strong 
believed was formed in the womb of the Virgin, have been 
a monster ! Besides, must not this our deceased brother, 
have viewed that character of Christ as a creature, which 
Dr. Hopkins acknowledged and adored as the Creator ? 

Elsewhere he speaks of Dr. Strong's theory as " taking 
away and annihilating the divinity of Christ," and as 
" really subverting Christianity." 

Such, Sir, are the charges which real Trinitarianism 
brings against the theory of the late Dr. Strong ; and such 
are the censures which it levels against him ! 

This, Sir, is a subject which I would gladly have left 
forever to slumber. But justice, as well to the dead, as to 
the living, has constrained me to make this exhibition of 
it. Your assertion, then, that Dr. Strong was a Trinitari- 
an, was calculated, I am persuaded, to make a wrong 
impression on the minds of your hearers. Nor do I see 
how you can justify yourself in making it. ^ Had you have 
asserted that he was not an advocate for Trinitarianism, as 
" expressed in the Assembly's Shorter Catechism," and 
as professedly advocated by the Institutions above-men- 
tioned, or as stated by the late Dr. Hopkins, would not 
your assertion, (which would have been strictly true) 
have made an impression on the minds of your hearers, 
very widely different from that which was produced by 
the assertion which you actually did make ? As there can 
be no doubt of this, so I considered your conduct unjusti- 
fiable in making that assertion in the unqualified manner 
in which you did make it. Of this, " in faithfulness," I 
made you acquainted at the last meeting of our Associa- 
tion. In doing it, I but discharged a duty which I could 
not neglect consistently with my sense of fraternal friend- 
ship and fidelity. 

From the above observations, you must perceive, that 
particularly to notice several remarks, which you have 
made on my " taxing you with ignorance, &c." of the late 
Dr. Strong's sentiments respecting the Trinity, would be 
both needless and impertinent, at least in my opinion. 
The following observations, however, are of too serious a 
nature to be neglected. Doubtless," you say, " I am 
ignorant, but not of Dr. Strong's sentiments on this sub- 



19 

ject, (the doctrine of the Trinity ;) and had I represented 
them as you do, I should then have been really guilty of 
wilful misrepresentation, and should have injured both 
the dead and the living. "—-Since, Sir, you are not igno- 
rant of Dr. Strong's sentiments respecting the doctrine of 
the Trinity, permit me to ask, whether, in any statement 
I have made, in this communication, I have contradicted 
a single sentiment, which you have ever heard him ad- 
vance on that subject ? Rather, I would ask, do you not 
know that he was not a Trinitarian in the sense in which 
I have represented him not to have been ? If you do not 
know this, you are yet to learn what his real sentiments 
were. But if I have not now misrepresented his senti- 
ments, you have never heard me misrepresent them, I am 
fully persuaded. Will you then persist in saying, that 
you would be guilty of wilful misrepresentation of the 
sentiments of our deceased brother, were you to represent 
them as I have done ? I think, Sir, that a little serious 
reflection on the subject will convince you that you can- 
not do it with a good conscience. The insinuation in the 
passage above quoted, that /have wilfully misrepresented 
our deceased brother, I shall dismiss with recommending 
it to your impartial review and conscientious consideration. 
I pray you to bestow this attention upon it, and then se- 
riously ask^ yourself whether that insinuation is " the 
way to repair breaches," — " to heal wounds" — to " pro- 
mote harmony, peace and love ?" 

In the next paragraph, Mr. T. charges me with having 
" strenuously defended both by conversation, and writing, 
and preaching, a scheme which is substantially avian." 

The cry of Arianism to those who understand its im- 
port as little as that gentleman seems to understand it, is 
proof, positive, " that the supposed advocate of it is a 
heretick — an infidel, and a reprobate." For Aw information, 
therefore, as well as their's, the following statement which 
is substantially arian, is respectfully submitted — " Arians 
are the followers of Arius, a presbyter of the church of 
Alexandria, about 315, who maintained that the Son of 
God was totally and essentially distinct from the Father ; 
that he was the first and noblest of those beings whom 
God had created : also that the Holy Ghost was not God, 
but created by the power of the Son." — If my sentiments 
are substantially arian, Arianism must be substantially 
different from itself. i 

The next passage in your letter, which I consider as 
claiming particular attention, is as follows. — " Your meet- 
ing with the Association, and occasionally exchanging 
with a majority of the members, proves that they have, 



20 

not rejected you as an heretick. Hence your complaint, 
that they have rejected you without admonition, is un- 
founded." — What construction, Sir, would you have me 
put on this passage ? or what would you have me think 
of its author ? If you would have me understand you as 
saying, that of the seven of my associated brethren, I 
exchange occasionally with two, and but two only, I should 
admit your statement as true , and not otherwise. — If the 
circumstance that I occasionally exchange with these two 
brethren, proves that the Association have not rejected me 
as an heretick, then proof exists, that they have not reject- 
ed me, otherwise the evidence does not exist. And if 
the circumstance that a majority of the Association have 
rejected me as an heretick, without admonition, proves 
that they have riot thus rejected me, then my " complaint 
is unfounded," and not otherwise. If you meant to be 
understood according to this exposition of the above 
quoted passage, I will readily admit its correctness, oth- 
erwise, I cannot do it with even the shadow of truth. But, 
Sir, if you meant to have been understood in a sense 
directly opposite to the import of your expressions, you 
ought to have given some intimation of it, But if you did 
not intend to be understood as meaning the very reverse 
of what you have said, must I not think your statements 
somewhat inaccurate ! Yet whether the above statements 
are less inaccurate than several others in your letter, is not 
a little problematical. 

In the last paragraph but one of your letter, you express 
it as your belief, that I have imbibed dangerous errors in 
relation to the doctrine of the Trinity. For this admoni- 
tion, which seems to have been kindly intended, you will 
have the goodness to accept my grateful acknowledge- 
ments. But what you intend by saying, " I have uni- 
formly laboured to convince you of them, (errors,) and 
implicitly admonished you with tenderness, and as I 
hope, with real desires for your best good," I am utterly 
unable to determine. 

What your labours of love, and your tender admonitions 
to reclaim me from my supposeel dangerous errors, have 
been, I know not, unless they have consisted in absenting 
yourself from my house for nearly eighteen months, and 
probably twice the length of that time, excepting your 
attendance there with the Association, once within the 
last mentioned period ; — unless they have consisted in 
your neglect to write to me on the subject of my heresy — 
your neglect elefinitely to state to me any of my supposed 
errors — your neglect to converse wit;> me on the subject of 
my erroneous sentiments at any time, excepting when we. 



21 

were brought together on Association occasions; and 
your treating me on those, and some other occasions, in a 
manner, as I have thought, not very indicative of a spirit 
of friendship and conciliation. 

This, Sir, has been your " uniform" manner of labour- 
ing to convince me of. my errors ; — thus have you " ad- 
monished" me with Xi tenderness" ibr my best good I 
And now you have terminated your benevolent , labours 
with me by an epistle, which was written " certainly not 
from ill will, nor with the least desire to irritate ; not ta 
increase difficulties subsisting between us, but with deep 
concern and most ardent desires for my best g;ood both in 
time and to eternity !" — For your desires lor my best 
good, you have my warmest thanks ; but for the manner 
in which you have expressed them, I cannot, as I wish to 
do, make a similar acknowledgment. 

REFLECTIONS. 

This is the substance of the remarks I made on those 
passages in the Rev. Mr. Thomas' # letter of 3d of last 
February, which I considered as " incorrect and excep- 
tionable ;" which remarks, in publishing my answer to 
that letter, I suppressed, because I had understood Mr. T. 
" in a personal interview with him," to have " explained 
and qualified" them in such a manner as to admit that 
they were incorrect and exceptionable ; and because he 
" could not give his consent" that his letter should be 
published. 

That Mr. T. should ever have given me just occasion 
to make these remarks, has ever been with me a subject 
of deep regret ; but that he discovered, as I supposed, so 
much of the spirit of a christian in the personal interview 
before mentioned, as to make me think it expedient to 
suppress the remarks, afforded me much pleasure and 
satisfaction. Consoling to my mind was the reflection that 
misunderstanding between us of a personal nature was 
cleared up and happily settled ; nor could I have believed 
that it was otherwise, but for his lately printed letter. 
And most sincerely do I grieve that he has made those 
' parts of it public, of which the above remarks are a re- 
view. — I grieve, not from an apprehension that my charac- 
ter, as respects my own people, or any others, who are 
well acquainted with " my manner of life from my youth," 
will suffer from it ; but from other considerations which I 
fear will occasion my brother deep and unavailing regret. 

Whether die passages in question are really incorrect 
and exceptionable, the reader, viewing them in the 



22 

light in which they have now been placed, will judge 
for himself. It is my sincere wish and hope that hie will 
judge as favourably of them, and of their author, as he 
possibly can do, consistently with truth. So far as I 
know my own heart, I can truly say that it harbors not a 
desire to injure Mr. T. in any degree, or in any way. It 
is my heart's desire and prayer to God, that he may be 
in health and prosper — especially that his soul may pros- 
per — that he may so conduct as to be greatly beloved and 
highly respected by the people of his charge, and by all 
who take knowledge of him — that he may be eminently 
useful, and that he may hereafter, through grace, receive 
an exceeding great reward. 

I cannot, however, but say, that in speaking of the pas- 
sages under consideration, as incorrect and exceptionable, 
I did think that I used terms as mild and unexceptionable, 
as I possibly could have done consistently with truth and 
propriety ; nor do I now find any reason to think other- 
wise. I did think also, that in representing Mr. T. as 
having explained and qualified those passages, I was so 
far from having acted an improper and injurious part in 
relation to his character, that on the contrary, I really vin- 
dicated it from the imputation of disingenuousness and 
falsehood, which might be attached to it. And in this 
light I now view the subject. Nor do I see how he can 
possibly avoid that imputation, but by a frank and ex- 
plicit acknowledgement, that the statements which he has 
made, are not only incorrect, but flagrantly erroneous. 
In the hope that he will yet see his obligation to make this 
acknowledgement — that he will be disposed promptly to 
make it, and thus preserve his reputation from merited 
reproach, secure his own usefulness, and the cause of 
truth from suffering — u In the hope" of this, I dismiss the 
very unpleasant subject, earnestly entreating Mr. T. to 
review it with seriousness and impartiality, — and then to 
think and act in relation to it as truth and justice may 
require. 

I am next to consider the 

APPENDIX OF MR. t's. LETTER. 

My remarks on this will be but brief and cursory, as 
it contains but very little aside from the contents of his 
letter. 

In the, first note of this appendix, Mr. T. states several 
things which he has heard, and of what he has credibly 
been informed, all which are designed to substantiate the 
fact that my theological sentiments have not been the 



23 

same in different periods of my ministerial life, and to 
make it appear that my " assertions, that I have not 
changed them, unaccountable and surprising." — That 
such assertions should appear to Mr. T. or to any other 
man of any reflection, unaccountable and surprising, on 
supposition that I had made them, is not to be wondered 
at, as no man, I should suppose, who did not " possess 
the gift of infallibility," would be likely to make theo- 
logical subjects his pursuit for thirty years, without finding 
occasion, in a greater or less degree, to " change" his sen- 
timents. Besides, had Mr. T. have heard me make such 
<l assertions," I do not wonder that it should appear to 
him unaccountable and surprising, as, during an intimate 
acquaintance with me for a series of years, he never found 
even the shadow of a reason, I would presume, to question 
my strict and sacred regard to truth. But notwithstand- 
ing the unaccountableness and the surprising circumstance 
of the supposed fact, the real fact is, that I have never 
made the assertions under consideration, excepting in the 
qualified sense, as already stated. Perhaps, however, I 
ought not to be thus peremptory. I will therefore say that 
I have never with design made them ; that I do not recol- 
lect ever to have made them, and that I am well persuaded 
that I never did make them. — In saying these things, how- 
ever, I would not be understood to impeach Mr. Thomas'* 
veracity, but only to suggest, that his saying I had repeat- 
edly asserted that I had uniformly believed and inculcat- 
ed the same doctrines, and had never changed my theo- 
logical sentiments, is to me truly "unaccountable and 
surprising." 

Mr. T. observes in this note, that he has " heard from 
the mouth of one of my parishioners, till lately, much 
opposed to my preaching, and that he is very credibly 
informed, that others of the same character, are heard to 
utter expressions of the same import, that I do not preach 
such hard things, &c."- — " This," he adds, " accords 
with the current and undisputed report, the truth of which 
Mr. N. himself did not question, when I once mentioned 
it to him, that the opposition of his former opposers was 
gradually subsiding, and that they, without any apparent 
alteration in them, began to be pleased with him (Mr. N.) 
as a preacher." — From this quotation, it should seem, 
that Mr. T. is much better acquainted with the subject of 
opposition to my preaching, among my parishioners, and 
the strength of that opposition with respect to past time, 
and its " subsiding" at the present time, than I am my- 
self; also of " current and undisputed report." But by 
vi hat authority he should peremptorily say, that " no ap- 



24 

parent alteration in my former opposers" had taken place, 
and that I "did not question' ' this, I know not, nor can. 
I satisfactorily conjecture. 

That some of my parishioners have, in times past, 
disapproved of some of my theological sentiments, and 
that some of them now do, I doubt not ; but whether 
those same sentiments meet with less opposition at the 
present moment, than has heretofore been the case, 1 can- 
not positively say. It is my hope, however, that they are 
more generally approved ; and with satisfaction I add— 
I think they are. If this indeed be the case, it may be 
accounted for from several considerations which I do not 
think it expedient particularly to mention — one, however, 
I will notice. It is this — An " apparent alteration" has 
taken place among my parishioners, and particularly 
among that portion of them, to whom I suppose Mr. T. 
alludes, as my " former opposers." This alteration is as 
desirable as it is apparent ; and it is such, I humbly 
hope, with respect to a considerable number of them, as 
" accompanies salvation." I desire to bless God that I 
have it my power to make this statement, a statement 
which, if I mistake not, Mr. T. has heretofore heard me 
make, and in an explicit, but I hope not in an ostentatious 
manner. 

As I have already, perhaps, said too much on the sub- 
ject of this note, I will dismiss it with observing, that if 
my parishioners, generally, are more attached to me as a 
preacher now, than they were in time past, it is my ardent 
hope, that the attachment may continue and increase, to 
the divine glory, and to our mutual benefit and happiness. 
And that this desirable object may be happily secured, it 
is equally my hope that I shall live better, and preach bet- 
ter than I ever yet have done — that I never shall seek in 
an improper manner, to please men, and that I shall be 
suffered to do nothing in public or in private, by partiality. 

The second r not e of the appendix will now be noticed. 
The first part of this note refers to an " assertion" which 
Mr. T. says I made " in my communication," that, 
" in his discourse at Dr. Strong's funeral, he through igno- 
rance or wilful misrepresentation, had pronounced him, 
(Dr. S.) a Trinitarian." This assertion he seems to con- 
sider as incompatible with a spirit of fraternal affection, 
mid an ardent desire to promote brotherly lave ami union, 
and that it was not indicative of a spirit of candor, of se- 
rious concern, and of respectful fidelity . — In reply to this, 
1 have to say — that I made an assertion of like import 
with Mr. T's. statement, I readily acknowledge ; the 
truth of which assertion, I have, I think, fully substan- 



25 

taated ; but that I made the assertion, agreeably to his 
statement, as a " slanderous iiisiniiation," I can by no 
means admit. That my assertion was viewed in this un- 
favourable light, I had not the slightest suspicion ; nor 
that it was calculated to make an unfavourable impression 
with respect to Mr. T's. veracity on the mind of any one 
who heard it. But if such an impression were made, I 
sincerely regret it, although I cannot charge myself with 
it, as a designing, or criminal cause. — As to the manner in 
which I expressed myself on that subject. I will not under- 
take peremptorily to decide. If it were not indicative of a 
spirit of candor, of serious concern, and respectful fidelity, 
I am willing, on being convinced, to confess my fault, 
and to receive the just and salutary correction of censure. 

In the same note, Mr. T. charges me with the guilt of 
" foul aspersion." This charge is founded on the repre- 
sentation of the treatment which my verbal communica- 
tion had received from the Association of which I was a 
member. This communication, I have said, as he ob- 
serves, " was, to my great disappointment, at the time 
Gt was made) treated by my brethren with the neglect 
of expressive silence" — Whether this declaration were a 
foul aspersion, the reader will be able to judge on being 
better acquainted with the subject. — The communication 
which I made to my associated brethren, who were but 
three in number, was made in the evening of the day on 
which we met, and after the appropriate business of that 
day was closed. — It was made., so far as I can judge of 
my own feelings and views, in a calm and dispassionate 
manner — with solicitude and deep concern, and with a 
view _ to remove misunderstanding and inauspicious im- 
pressions ; and to restore fraternal union and intercourse. 
When I had closed it, I observed, as nearly as I can rec- 
ollect, that as the evening was far spent, it might not be 
advisable that any reply should be made to it, till after we 
had slept, and opportunity should be afforded for mature 
and serious reflection. The subject was here dropped, 
and the gentlemen soon retired to bed. I did the same, 
and with a strong impression on my mind that my breth- 
ren could not doubt that I expected they would particu- 
larly and distinctly notice my communication the next 
morning. This I certainly expected. Their neglect to 
aotice it, was, of course, a great disappointment to me. — 
This is a just statement of the facts of the case. But how 
a statement of an undeniable truths is a foul aspersion, I 
have yet to learn. 

Mr. T. adds, " that before the Association separated, a 
number of questions were entered upon the docket, for 



26 

discussion at their next meeting, which questions included 
the most material subjects contained in my communica- 
tion." — Why the gentleman should notice this circum- 
stance, but with the view to fasten upon me the crime of 
foul aspersion, I know not. But how little it is to his 
purpose^ the reader would be better able to judge, had 
Mr. T. informed him, that these questions would not, in 
all probability, have found a place in the docket, had it 
not been that I prepared th£ way for it by proposing a 
question or questions, immediately relating to " the most 
material things" contained in this same communication ; 
and that he did not see fit to approve it. 

The things, generally, contained in the third note of 
the appendix, I consider as having already been fairly and 
sufficiently noticed. And it is with reluctance that I now 
persuade myself to make any additional remarks. — In 
this note, Mr. T. observes that " Trinitarianism consists 
in believing that the one God exists in three equally divine 
persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; and 
that both divinity and humanity are united in the person 
of Christ. Dr. Strong believed in this sentiment, and was 
therefore a real Trinitarian." " And Mr. N. himself, if 
he will admit, as he ought, that my statement of the 
scheme is correct, cannot but know that the Dr. professed 
to be a firm believer in it." To this I reply, that Dr. 
Strong professed to believe as I do, that the soul of Jesus 
Christ was super-angelic — that it existed before the foun- 
dation of the world — that • for this soul God prepared the 
body which was born of the virgin Mary — that this was 
the soul and the only soul which became incarnate, or 
became united to that body, and that Jesus Christ, as con- 
sisting of this soul and body, suffered and died " under 
Pontius Pilate, to make an atonement for sin, &c. — And 
this soul of Christ according to the Dr's. theory, if I have 
understood him, is the Logos or Word" the supreme 
Deity of the Trinitarians. This soul, he did not scruple 
to say was created. Nor do I know of any other " hu- 
manity," excepting a body, which he ascribed to Christ. 
But this kind of humanity is not the humanity of Trinita- 
rianism, The advocates for that theory expressly disclaim 
it. Dr. Hopkins, who was a decided and acknowledged 
Trinitarian, observes, " this supposed first and greatest 
creature, cannot with any propriety or truth, be called a 
human soul, more than any other supposeable or possible 
creature, that could be made ; nor would his union to a 
human body make him any more a'human soul thari if he 
were not so united." (Hopkins' system, vol. 1st, 2d edit, 
p. 351.) 



Thus much I know and understand in relation to the 
Trinitarianism of my late and respected brother Strong, so 
far as I have been able to learn it from his own mouth ; nor 
do I wish for a better voucher for the truth of what I have 
stated, than some of his manuscript sermons and essays, 
if they have not been destroyed. 

I have now discharged, with respect to this subject, 
what I considered as a duty, and what I have felt, and do 
feel as a very unpleasant ^ one. — Gladly do I dismiss the 
subject, with only observing, that the things which I omit 
to notice in the note, are either toe mysterious to be un- 
derstood, or too invidious to claim a reply. 

As the fourth note of the appendix is little else but a 
repetition of the same things, it were needless particularly 
to notice it any further than by observing, that had it 
breathed a more candid anfl christian spirit, it would, I 
should think, be more to the reputation of its author. 

In note fifth, Mr. T. observes, " Since the letter was 
written (Mr. T's. letter of Feb. 3,) Mr. N. has told me 
that he did not exchange with a majority of the Associa- 
tion, yet he admitted that a majority had not explicitly 
refused to exchange with him. There was, therefore, no 
evidence, at the time, that the intercourse between him 
and them was actually broken off." — In what light Mr. 
T. would have me and his readers view this quotation ; 
€>r what impression he would have it make, I will not 
positively say. I think, however, that it is calculated to 
make an impression on the mind of the reader, who is 
unacquainted with the facts of the case, very widely differ- 
ent from the impression, which a correct and " unvarnished 
tale" would make. — The simple facts of the case are— r- 
Sometime before Mr. T. wrote his letter, I observed to 
my associated brethren, that I was desirous to know my 
situation with them, with respect to exchanges of profes- 
sional labours. — Agreeably, I proposed an exchange to 
each of them, whom I considered as viewing me as an 
heretick ; — each declined to comply. In conversation 
with them, or several of them after wards, when Mr. T. 
was present, they suggested that they did not mean to be 
understood that circumstances might not be such as to 
open a door for exchanges between us at some future time. 
Nor have I ever heard either of them intimate, trom the time 
I proposed exchanges with them, to the present time, that 
they were disposed or willing to renew ministerial inter- 
course with me. I have indeed never thought that this 
was the case, nor have I ever " admitted" or intimated 
the thing. This statement,so far as I can trust my memo- 
ry and understanding, is a fair, correct and circumstantial 



28 

Exposure of the whole affair. But if "there is no evi- 
dence" that intercourse between a majority of my lately 
associated brethren, has been, or now is " actually broken 
off," it is my hope and request that they will have the 
goodness to give me the information. 

As Mr. T. does " not hesitate to deny" his assertion, 
that I " occasionally exchange with a majority of the 
members" of the late association, to be " incorrect and 
exceptionable," and as he does not hesitate to deny that he 
has explained and qualified several incorrect statements 
and exceptionable passages in his letter," I have only to 
say, " alas, my brother !" 

In the sixth and last note of his appendix, Mr. T. ob- 
serves, " I have here only to add, that at present, I have 
other reasons beside the one mentioned in the letter, for 
refusing to hold intercourse with Mr. N. — reasons far 
more weighty than his ' neglecting to use unscriptural and 
anti- scriptural words and phrases' in his worship, &c." — 
That this my neglect should be any reason " for" his 
" refusing to hold intercourse with me," I sincerely re- 
gret. — As to his " other far more weighty reasons," I can, 
at present, have nothing to say, as I am wholly ignorant 
with respect to their number, their quality, and their weight. 

Having thus briefly reviewed the notes of Mr. T's, 
appendix, I gladly dismiss the unpleasant subject, to 
examine his "notice of a few of the many things contain- 
ed in my publication." In doing this, I 'shall be as brief 
as the subjects of that notice will admit; nor shall 
I be forgetful, I hope, that as these subjects are 
exceedingly momentous, sublime and solemn, they 
are to be treated with correspondent reverence and 
solemnity. It is with emotions of uncommon awe and 
solicitude that I enter on this examination. And humbly 
do I implore the Fountain of all truth and light, that he 
would mercifully preserve me not only from error, but 
from every indecorous expression. The subject which 
first claims my attention, relates to 

THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

The things which I am to notice under this head are 
contained in 15, 16, 17 pages of Mr. T's. publication. 
Here, I will invite the attention of my reader, in the first 
place to the disagreement which Mr. T. says exists be- 
tween us in sentiment in relation to the lioly Spirit. 
" Every one," he observes, " who has the least discern- 
ment, must perceive" from my statements, " that our 



29 

sentiments on trie great point m question, are radically dif- 
ferent and totally discordant" In this assertion, I sincere- 
ly hope Mr. T. is incorrect. But if it is to be admitt- 
ed that every one who has the least discernment, must 
perceive this total discordancy, I cannot but think that 
every one who has the greatest discernment, or even but a 
moderate share of discernment, must perceive that the 
discordancy of our sentiments is not total. Mr. T. ad- 
mits that, according to my statements, the Holy Ghost, 
or Holy Spirit, is of the same import with the breath of 
God, power of God, or the emanation of his energetis 
fulness : — that Spirit of God is always an impersonal, or 
neuter noun — that no expressions of mutual affection oc- 
cur in the scriptures between God and the Holy Spirit, 
and that no ascriptions of praise are offered to the Holy 
Spirit. He admits also, that agreeably to my statements, 
the " Holy Spirit is self-existent, eternal, omnipotent, &c. 
and not distinct from the one God, but essentially the 
same" Such are the representations which Mr. T. seems 
very desirous to make his readers believe, I have made 
of the Holy Spirit. And I am, most certainly, equally 
desirous that they should believe it. But I cannot say 
that I am equally desirous that any one should believe 
that these representations " are radically ^ different" from, 
and " totally discordant" with his sentiments, as he en- 
deavors to prove. 

Mr. T. further observes, that " the Holy Spirit, of 
whom / spoke, is not the Holy Spirit of whom the scrip- 
tures speak." — But does not he speak this, without 
scripture, and even in direct opposition to scripture ! That 
the scriptures do speak all the things as above stated, with 
respect to the Holy Spirit, is a fact which no man, I am 
confident, can deny consistently with truth and soberness. 
If then Mr. T. is to be understood as he speaks, I readily 
allow, but with deep concern and regret, that " every one 
who has the least discernment, must perceive that our sen- 
timents" on the great point in question, are "indeed" 
radically differeiit, and totally discordant. 

Mr. T. in the pages above referred to, strongly insinu- 
ates, to say the least, that I do not harmonize with myself 
in the statements which I have made respecting the Holy 
Spirit ; that I withhold necessary information with respect 
to my meaning of the phrase Holy Spirit — and that absurd 
and shocking conclusions in the extreme, necessarily fol- 
low from my theory, &c. &c. — In reply to this, I would 
say, it is not unlikely that I have not so clearly conveyed 
my ideas " on this great point," as could be wished, or 
as the subject, difficult as it is, would admit. But if I 



30 

have not been understood, I hope that I shall not be de- 
nied the privilege of an attempt to explain my meaning. 

In whatever I have published respecting the Holy Spirit, 
my leading object has been to shew that this same Spirit 
is not a distinct person from the one God, but comprehend- 
ed in the Being of the one God, is essential to his existence 
and expressive of his fulness, perfection and glory. But 
whether by the terms Holy Ghost — Holy Spirit — Spirit 
of God> &c. all this is always expressed, I would by no 
means positively decide. I think it probable, however, 
that these terms are sometimes used in a restrictive sense, 
designating only a particular perfection or attribute of God. 
In favour of this sentiment are the following examples. — 
Impious and incorrigible transgressors are represented as 
brought to destruction by the " breath of the Lord," — 
and by " the Spirit of the Lord." — " By the blast of God 
they perish, and by the breath of his mouth they are con- 
sumed." " By his Sprrit he hath garnished the heav- 
ens;" but " the heavens are the work of his hand" — of 
" his fingers" 

It will not, I presume, by any reflecting and unbiassed 
mind, be denied or even questioned, that by the breathy 
blast, hand and fingers of God, the Spirit of God is in- 
tended. But when Spirit of God is used synonimously 
with those terms, must it not be expressive of his power ? 
Why then should it be thought improper to speak of the 
Spirit of God, in this view, as " a thing ?" Does the pow- 
er of God import precisely the same thing as God himself ? 
Besides, must it not be deemed highly improper and in ■ 
congruous to speak of breath, hand and fingei's, as a dis- 
tinct and co-ordinate person with him, to whom the breath, 
hand, and fingers belong ! 

The Spirit of God is represented by several metaphors, 
which seem incompatible with the idea that God and his 
Spirit are two distinct and co-equal persons— such as 
water, fire, and anointing oil — Now that water poured 
forth, sprinkling with water, the operation of fire winch 
may be quenched, and the act of anointing with the oil of 
gladness, are emblematical representations of the Spirit of 
God, wiil admit, it is presumed, of no controversy. But 
do these representations favour the sentiment, that the 
Spirit of God is a personal existence, and in distinction 
from God himself whose Spirit it is ! 

When we pray that God would pour out his Spirit, do 
we mean to invoke one self-existent person, to pour out 
another self-existent and co-equal person ? Are we ever 
understood in this sense! — Besides, what, I would also 
ask, do the scriptures mean by the residue of the Spirit? 



31 

Is not the natural import of the phrase obviously this — 
that the Spirit or influence of God is never exhausted ? 
But if the Spirit were a person, and God were to pour 
out this person, where, or what would be the residue ? 

As it is my principal object in this place to make the 
representation, which I have heretofore made of the Holy 
Spirit, more intelligible, I shall' attempt no elaborate dis- 
cussion of the subject. 

The above remarks are designed to show that the Hoty 
Spirit is not a person distinct from the one God, but that 
which is comprehended in the Being of the one God, and 
essential to his existence — that the term Spirit is expres- 
sive of his power, and that, as it is sometimes used, there 
can be no impropriety in speaking of the Spirit as a things 
and that it may with as much propriety be thus spoken of 
as the term, power of God. Some of the above quotations 
and remarks are not to be considered in 'his restrictive 
sense, but are expressive, perhaps, # of the fulness, or all- 
sufficiency of God. Although a single attribute of God 
seems sometimes to be particularly intended by the term 
Spirit, yet I am far from believing that it is used in this 
restrictive sense, so as to exclude his other attributes. I 
have indeed, no doubt, that the terms Holy Ghost, Holy 
Spirit, &c. in their various applications^ express all those 
attributes of God, which are implied in his fulness, 

01' ALL-SUFFICIENCY. : 

As the one God then, is " self-existent, eternal, omnipo- 
tent, omniscient, infinite in holiness, in truth and good- 
ness," must not the Holy Spirit be self-existent, &x ? In 
other words, are not the perfections of the one God, such 
as the scriptures represent them to be? But do these 
perfections constitute a person " distinct from the one 
God, in any other than in an improper or figurative 
sense V % 

Such are my views of the Holy Spirit, nor have I con- 
veyed, as I believe, any sentiments which clash with the 
above statements, or which clash one with another ; yet 
Mr. T. seems very desirous to make his readers believe, 
that I represent the one God as not being " a person in any 
other than an impioper and figurative sense, only an 
emanation of his own energetic fulness — only the breath of 
God." " These conclusions," he observes, u though 
absurd and shocking in the extreme, necessarily follow 
from Mr. N's. theory." 

> That Mr. T. should make this representation of my 
views of the Holy Spirit, 1 am as greatly grieved as sur- 
prised. I am persuaded that he had no ground or reason 
for making it ; nor can I but believe, that had he duly at- 



38 

tended to the subject, he would have been as fully con- 
vinced of this, as 1 am. _ If I had made any statements re- 
specting the Holy Spirit, aside from those made in the 
scriptures of truth, why did he not shew, or attempt to 
shew from these scriptures, that I had done so ? This 
might reasonably have been expected of him. But he has 
not done it ; nor is it easy to assign any other reason for 
this, than that my statements are perfectly scriptural. 
And that they are so, in deed, and in truth, no one, I 
should^ think, would question, who has made the scriptures 
his guide in relation to the subject. 

Nor am I less grieved and surprised that Mr. T. after 
admitting that I represent the Holy Spirit " essentially 
the same as the one supreme God," should say, that from 
my representation, " every one who has the least discern- 
ment must perceive that our sentiments on the great point 
in question, are radically (liferent, are totally discordant !" 
Most sincerely do I hope that the pen of Mr. T. through 
mistake, neither expressed his belief, nor executed his 
will. But if this hope is not to be indulged, I see not but 
I must infer, that he does not believe the Holy Spirit to be 
essentially the same as the one supreme^ God. 

What Mr. T. says with respect to the distinct personali- 
ty of the Holy Spirit, and several other things, I do not 
understand. I shall therefore pass them without further 
notice. 

The subject now to be noticed is Mr. Thomas' review 
of my sentiments respecting 

THE CHARACTER OF THE SON" OJ GOD. 

In p. 18, of his pamphlet, he expresses dissatisfaction 
that I should have attempted " to prove that * we harmo- 
nize in sentiment,' respecting Jesus Christ," in relation to 
what he calls his highest character ; and in subsequent 
pages he endeavours to prove that " there is not only a 
real, but a very great difference" between us " in senti- 
ment, respecting the character of Christ," and indeed, 
that our sentiments " are totally opposite" (p. 20.) — 
Whether this be really the case, I will not undertake 
positively to decide. I had however indulged the hope 
and belief, that our sentiments respecting this very im- 
portant subject, were not so widely different as he thinks, 
and represents them to be. I had indulged the hope also 
that I should be able to convince him that the disagreement 
between us, was " rather seeming than real." Nor am I 
now willing to abandon the hope that this is really the case. 
But as my brother seems very desirous to make it appear 



that we are, and must be antipodal to each other in opin- 
ion, respecting " the highest character of Jesus Christ," and 
as this may really be the case, I shall not attempt to prove 
the identity of our opinions. My principal object will be 
to examine his theory, and to test it both by reason and 
revelation. 

Mr. T. (p. 18.) professes to believe with me, " that 
Christ cannot be the supreme God by virtue of the union 
of which I speak," that is, a union " in consent, affection, 
design, and pursuit " Although he says, " I believe that 
there is perfect unity of affection, design and pursuit be- 
tween Christ and the Father, yet it is not on account of 
any such union as this, that I consider Christ as being 
God." — If I understand this passage and several others of 
a similar nature which occur in his pamphlet, Mr. T. does 
not consider Christ, as God, by virtue of any moral union 
which subsists between him and his Father. But if this 
be not the union which subsists between Christ, in his 
supposed highest character, and his Father, by which he 
becomes God, on Trinitarian ground, I cannot even con- 
jecture in what the union does consist. Is not the union 
between the Trinitarian, first and second person in the 
Godhead, of a moral nature ? and is not this the union by 
which the second person is God, and by which they both 
are one Being ? This, I have supposed, Trinitarians would 
readily admh\ But should they deny it, I would ask, 
what other union than that of a moral nature, can possibly 
exist between two persons purely spiritual? What other 
union than this, can there be between God, and the Trini- 
tarian second person, and his human or " reasonable 
soul ?" Or what other union than that of a moral nature, 
can reasonably be supposed to exist between the supposed 
complex character of Christ, or two souls, divine and hu- 
man, and the one God, the Father ? If this be not the 
Trinitarian union between Christ and the Father, by vir- 
tue of which it is supposed that Christ is God, most gladly 
would I learn from them what it is. Although Mr. T. 
does not consider Christ as being God, on account of any 
such union as this, yet this is the only union, I am per- 
suaded, on which he can ground his belief, that Christ is 
the supreme God ; for no other union than this, it is be- 
lieved, can exist between Christ and his Father. 

" I and my Father are one." John x. 30. This dec- 
laration of Christ, furnishes satisfactory evidence to the 
minds of Trinitarians, if I understand them, that he is God, 
the one God with his Father. But because Christ and his 
Father are one, does it follow that Christ is the supreme 
Father, or that he is equal to his Father in power and glo- 

E 



ry f Or does it follow that the union subsisting between 
them is any other than that of a moral nature ? — If Christ 
by this declaration claimed to be the supreme God, or 
to be equal to the supreme God his Father, is it not very 
strange and unaccountable, that in this same chapter, he 
should have spoken of himself as " the good shepherd who 
giveth his life for the sheep ;" as having "received com- 
mandment of his Father," as " doing the works which he 
did, in his Father's name?" — Besides, what are we to 
understand by his declaration, " My Father, which gave 
them me (the sheep) is greater than all ?" — Can it reason- 
ably be admitted that the supreme God gave his life as a 
ransom for his people, denominated sheep ? — that lie 
received commandment from any other ? or that in the 
name of another he performed wonderful works ? or that 
any other person or being is greater than himself greater 
than all? 

Should it be urged that the Jews considered Christ as 
claiming to be God, or equal to God his Father, when 
he said, " I and my Father are one ;" that Christ meant 
so to be understood by them, and therefore it must be 
inferred from his declaration, that he is indeed the su- 
preme God, — the argument will not be admitted as good, 
nor even as plausible ; for, notwithstanding the captious 
and malignant Jews charged him with making himself 
God, Christ, so far from admitting the justness of the 
charge, shows them by an unanswerable argument, that it 
was unfounded.—*' Jesus answered them, is it not written 
in your law, I said, ye are gods ? If he called them gods, 
unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture can- 
not be broken ; say ye of him whom the Father hath 
sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest ; be- 
cause I said, I am the Son of God," in acknowledging God 
as my Father *? The true import of this answ r er of Christ 
seems most obviously to be — " Your own scriptures, the 
authority of which cannot be broken or controverted, 
give the title of gods even o magistrates, on account of 
the peculiar relation they kwc to God, by virtue of their 
office. — If then this sublime title, ye are gods, which was 
given to magistrates by God himself, is applicable to 
them, how can you charge me with blasphemy, or how- 
can you reasonably pretend that I assume to be God, for 
taking the title of the Son of God, seeing that my Father 
hath sanctified me, and sent me into the world, setting me 
apart for the great purpose of instructing mankind into his 
will, and to execute an higher office than that of mag- 
istrates "? and when the certainty of this my commission is 
incontestibly proved by the works which I do before you 



55 

in my Father* ] s name ? If I have attributed any thing di- 
vine to myself, I did not do it as making myself the su- 
preme God ; but as acknowledging him to be the Foun- 
tain and Spring of all that divine power I spoke of as be- 
ing in me, which the words made use of, Father and Son, 
plainly imply." — Whether the Jews understood Christ as 
assuming to be the supreme God, when he said land my 
Father are one, may reasonably be doubted ; but I see not 
how it can reasonably be doubted, that in his reply to their 
charge, he meant unequivocally to disclaim that assumption. 

Now, since Christ in saying, I and my Father are one, 
did not claim to be the one supreme God, nor to be equal 
to the one supreme God, what could he have intended by 
the oneness, or union between himself and his Father, but 
that of a moral nature ? Will Trinitarians undertake to 
prove, or do they believe that any union but of this kind 
subsists between God and any dependent being? I presume 
not. < But dees not Christ plainly teach us that the oneness 
or union between christians, between christians and him- 
self, and between christians and the one God, is the same, 
in kind, as the union which subsists between himself and 
his Father ? If this be not the case, what are we to under- 
stand by his praying " Holy Father, keep through thine 
own name, those whom thou hast given me, that they may 
be one as we are — that they may all be one ; as thou 
Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one 
in us ; that the world may know that thou hast sent me. 
And the glory which thou gavest me, I have given them ; 
that they may be one, even as we are one." I know not 
how any attentive and unprejudiced mind can read this 
prayer of Christ, without being satisfactorily convinced, 
that the oneness which subsists between christians them- 
selves — between christians and Christ, and between chris- 
tians and God the Father, is the same, in kind, with that 
which subsists between Christ and the Father. But " it 
is not on account of any such union as this," says Mr. T. 
" that I consider Christ as being God." On what account 
then, is it that he believes the doctrine ? It is not, so far as 
I can see, on account of any union whatever between 
Christ and his Father. 

According to his own statement, (p. 18, 19,) Mr. T. 
believes that " both real humanity , and real divinity belong- 
to the person of Jesus Christ ; or that he himself is ' the 
man Christ Jesus? and the true God." In other words, 
he says, " when I speak of Christ in what I call his lowest 
character, I mean to speak of him as being a man, as 
truly so, as any of Adam's race, as being the ' seed of 
Abraham, the offspring of David/ and in all things made 



36 

like unto his brethren. And when I speak of Christ in 
what I call his highest character, I mean that he himself is 
the supreme Jehovah. Paul expresses my views upon 
this subject, where, speaking of Israel, he says, " of whom, 
as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God 
blessed forever." — As this quotation contains things, 
which to me are hard to be understood, I know not 
whether it will be in my power to do justice either to them 
or their author. It shall be my aim, however, to do 
justice to both. If I understand him, Mr. T. expresses 
it as his belief that Jesus Christ is properly a person, and 
but one person only ; and that this one person consists 
both of real humanity, and real divinity, or that this one 
person is a man and as truly so, as any other man, and yet 
that he himself is the supreme Jehovah ! But that Mr. T. 
or any other man really believes this more than strange 
doctrine, I know not how to admit, although I do not 
question that he and many others think they believe it. 

If the person, Jesus Christ, is himself as truly a man, 
as any of Adam's race, can it be true, or can it be proper 
to say, that this same person, is the supreme Jehovah ! 
What is this but to say that a human person or being is 
divine, and that a divine person or Being is human ! — that 
a creature is the creator \ and that this same creator is a 
creature ; and that a dependent person or being is indepen- 
dent ; and that an independent person or being is depen- 
dent ! Mr. T. I doubt not will object to this representa- 
tion as inadmissible. % But I do not see that he can reasona- 
bly make the objection, hvX by objecting to his own theory r 
as I understand it. But as this representation evidently 
involves a gross absurdity, Mr. T. in order to avoid it, 
may say that he considers what he calls the lowest charac- 
ter in Christ's person, as so united and blended with the 
supposed highest character, as to constitute 072? essence or 
substance^ But should he say this, I do not see that it 
would relieve the subject of any difficulty. Is it admissi- 
ble, or even conceivable that an infinite and uncreated 
Spirit should be so blended or intermingled with a created 
spirit or " reasonable soul," as to constitute but one per- 
sonality — one essence — one mind — one consciousness — one 
state oj being, &c. This representation involves, in my 
view, no less an incongruity than the other. But if Mr. 
T. will admit of neither of these representations of the 
complex character of the person of Christ, as stating his 
belief in relation to the subject, I neither know, nor can 1 
conceive what his belief is. He observes, indeed, that he 
believes that Jesus Christ, even " he himse/f is the man 
Christ Jesus and the true God" But if any of his readers 



37 

can understand his meaning, they must possess an acute - 
ness of understanding, to which I never expect to attain. 

That Jesus Christ is in scripture styled man and Son of 
man is unquestionably true ; but does it appear from this 
consideration, that he is " a man, and as truly so, as any of 
Adam's race V* This is by no means to be admitted. The 
scripture speaks of the angel Gabriel as a man — the angel 
of the Lord's presence, or the supposed second person in 
the Trinity, is a man, and God himself, even the supreme 
Father, is a man, " a man of war." But is it hence to be 
inferred that either God, or the angel of his presence, or 
the angel Gabriel, is a man in the proper sense of the word* 
and as truly so, as any of Adam's race? The proper 
answer to this question is too obvious, not to be perceived. 
But if Jesus Christ be not properly a man, because he is 
spoken of as a man. and as the Son of man* must not every 
argument employed to prove that this character belongs to 
him, be unavailing ? — 

But while it is admitted that Jesus Christ is in scripture 
called man, it will not so readily be admitted that he is 
called " the true God." Although Mr. T. seems to 
believe that this title is ascribed to him by an inspired 
apostle, he has assigned no particular reason for this his 
belief. Nor can any reason be assigned for it, I am per- 
suaded, which would be satisfactory to the inquisitive and 
unbiassed mind. That the title, the true God* is not 
ascribed to Jesus Christ, but to the God and Father of 
Jesus Christ, has been made to appear highly probable, if 
not certain, in a tract lately published, entitled, " Things 
set in a proper light, by an orthodox clergyman." Should 
the reader be desirous to examine the arguments of that 
w 7 riter in relation to this subject, he will find them in 
p. 41 — 43, of the publication referred to. 

" Paul, (Mr. T. observes,) expresses my views of 
the subject, (the supreme divinity of Christ) where, speak- 
ing of Israel, he says, " of whom, as concerning the flesh, 
Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever." Al- 
though this text seems to convey to the mind of Mr. T. 
the most full and satisfactory evidence that Jesus Christ is 
" the supreme Jehovah," yet I cannot but think that were 
he more carefully to attend to it, the evidence would appear 
to him less forcible, to say the least, than it now does. 

It is very far, I am persuaded, from being certain that 
St. Paul considered the latter part of this text as descrip- 
tive of the character of Christ, or that he ever thought of 
applying it to him. Is Christ, as concerning the flesh, the 
supreme Jehovah ! This I should think could not be the 
case, even on Trinitarian ground. But be this as it may, 



38 

much> if not conclusive evidence, exists, that " the ancient 
Greek manuscripts had only, who is over all, blessed for- 
ever. So Cyprian, Hilarius, and Chrysostom, seem to 
have read it. The Greek ^ words, as they stand in the 
present copies, are of ambiguous construction, and may 
signify either — Of whom Christ came ; God who is over 
all, be blessed forever. Or, Of whom Christ came, who 
is over all : God be blessed forever. In favour of these 
renderings, may be alleged the use of the word blessed as 
applied generally to God the Father, by way of eminence, 
in other places of scripture ; and particularly in that re- 
markable place, " Art thou the Christ, the Son of the 
Blessed ? In favour of these renderings, we have also the 
testimony of several of the ancient Fathers ; that of 
Eusebius particularly, who in all his books against Marcel- 
lus, lays it down as the constant known doctrine of the 
church that Christ is not the God over all ; but that this is 
the peculiar title of the Father. He also affirms that 
Sabellius was excommunicated as a blasphemer for this 
very assertion, as confounding the characters of the 
Father and the Son." — But should it be admitted that 
the rendering, as we have it in the common version of the 
Bible, is correct, yet, it is far from proving that Jesus 
Christ is the supreme Jehovah. Is Christ God over all ? 
Yet is it not " manifest that he is excepted which did put 
all things under him ?" Christ may be styled God oyer 
all, as he is by his God and Father appointed Lord, King 
and Governor of all. " The Father hath committed all 
judgment to the Son — hath given all things into his hands, 
and a name which is above every name that is named, not 
only in this world ; but also in that which is to come — and 
has put all things (himself excepted) under his feet, and 
given him to be head over all things." — And he is " bless- 
ed forever," as he is the object, to men and angels, of 
everlasting blessing and honour, " to the glory of God the 
Father." But does it appear from the consideration of 
these things, that Christ is the supreme and independent 
God ? I humbly conceive that it does not, unless it is to 
be admitted that a subordinate and dependent being, has a 
just claim to supremacy and independence. 

In the view of these things, I cannot but be strongly 
apprehensive that the sentiments of Mr. T. are as discor- 
dant With those of " Paul," as with those of " Mr. N." 

Mr. T. (p. 19.) expresses disapprobation of the terms 
middle place as used in my letter with application to Christ 
as Mediator between God and men. And with the view 
to make it appear that Christ neither does, nor can occupy 
such a place, he observes, u there is but one infinite Be- 



39 

ing, even the supreme Jehovah. But a finite being is 
infinitely inferior to an infinite being. For between that 
which is limited, and that which is unlimited or absolutely 
boundless, there can be no medium or middle place". — 
These remarks would be admitted as just, if by middle 
place were meant a place exactly mid- way between God 
and men ; but that Mr. T. understood me to use the 
expression in this sense, is hardly to be supposed. But 
if he did so understand me, I wish to remove his mistake. 
I will therefore say, »that in speaking of Christ as holding a 
middle place between God and men, I would be under- 
stood as conveying the ideas, that his character is interme- 
diate between that of the supreme God and men, that in 
this character or station he performs the work of media- 
tion ; and that, of course, he can possess neither the 
character of the supreme God, nor that of man. Precisely 
to ascertain the nature and dignity of Christ, I make no- 
pretence. Nor, as I conceive, can this ever be ascertained 
either by men or angels. But that he transcends, and in 
an inconceivable degree, the highest order of other depen- 
dent beings, and that in nature and dignity he is next to 
the supreme Father, and thus holds a middle place, I 
have expressed as my belief. Nor is my belief in this 
great and glorious doctrine, in any degree shaken by the 
remarks which Mr. T. has made respecting it. 

To speak of Christ as holding a " a middle place" 
between God and men is perfectly consistent w 7 ith my 

feneral views of his character, and the character of his 
ather. Nor does this representation clash, as I con- 
ceive, with any Bible statement, or any result of candid 
and patient investigation. But should this representation 
be incorrect and unintelligible, as Mr. T. supposes, in 
what light must he consider it as made by Irinitarian 
writers ? Dr. Griffin and other writers on the doctrine of 
the Trinity, speak of Jesus Christ as " an agent, who, 
appointed by the Father, and subject to his will, holds the 
middle place of Mediator between God and man" They 
also speak of him as " the organ by which God governs 
the universe, the channel through which all his communi- 
cations to creatures are made, and the grand medium 
through which he is seen." They also speak of him as 
" a person that intervenes between an offended God and 
sinful men." 

How Trinitarian writers can reconcile these representa- 
tions of Christ with their theory of the Trinity I know not. 
Nor do I think such a reconciliation possible. In this 
sentiment Mr. T. seems fully to agree with me ; for he 
says I know 7 not, nor do I ever expect to know what is 



40 

meant " by a being who occupies a middle state between 
God and man ; for between that which is limited, and 
that which is unlimited or absolutely boundless, there can 
be no medium, no middle place" — And that there is in- 
deed no such place for Jesus Christ, if he is " a man, 
and as truly so, as any of Adam's race ;" or if " he him- 
self is the supreme Jehovah" is too obvious to require 
proof. It is undoubtedly a self-evident proposition that 
neither the supreme God, nor a man, can hold a middle 
place between the supreme God and man. But is it not 
equally evident according to Mr. T's u views upon 
the subject," that Jesus Christ does not hold the place or 
state even of Mediator between God and men ? As " the 
supreme Jehouah" he cannot surely occupy this place 
or state, and it is equally impossible that he should do 
this, as " truly a man." Nor is it possible that the sup- 
posed person of Christ who " is truly a man, and the su- 
preme Jehovah," can occupy the place or state of Me- 
diator, unless this same person can perform the work of 
mediation between himself and men ! for surely there 
is but one supreme Jehovah. But this same supreme Je- 
hovah, according to Mr. T's theory, is ^constituent part 
of the person of Christ ! According to this theory, I can 
find neither a middle place, nor any other place for Christ 
as Mediator, unless it be that, which may be occupied by 
" a man, as truly so as any of Adam's race !" — But this 
is not " the man Christ Jesus" whom I consider as the 
Mediator, and as holding a middle place between God and 
men. In my estimation he is a person or being of incon- 
ceivably higher character, dignity and excellence. Nor 
can I admit that the supreme Jehovah occupies such a 
place ; nor that the supreme Jehovah, so united to a man, 
as to become one person with him, performs the work, of 
mediation. That such a person should exist, appears to 
me impossible ; nor, as I conceive, has the existence of 
such a person the sanction either of enlightened reason or 
revelation. But were the existence of such a person pos- 
sible, and even admitted as fact, is it conceivable that he 
could sustain and execute the office of Mediator between 
himself and man ! This, I humbly conceive, would be 
impossible. And I know not but it is impossible to 
reconcile, in any degree, Mr. T's. views of the person of 
Christ with mine. — If this really be the case, I cannot but 
deeply regret it, as, I must view him a much greater 
errorist, than I have heretofore done. 

" I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — his 
only begotten Son — the first born of every creature — that 
God sanctified and sent him into the world as Mediator 



41 

between himself and sinful men, and therefore, that he 
is not a Mediator of one, or of one party concerned — that 
as a prophet God raised him up — that he is the high priest 
of our profession, and is faithful to him who appointed 
him — that he is the King, whom God has set on his holy 
hill of Zion— that he will reign in his kingdom till he hath 
put all enemies under his feet, when he will deliver up the 
kingdom, which he had received, to God, even the Father, 
that God may be all in all. I believe also that the doctrine 
which he taught was not his own, but the doctrine of him 
that sent him — that he spoke the words of God who gave 
not the Spirit by measure unto him — that he received com- 
mandment of his Father, prayed to, and obeyed his Fath- 
er — that of his ownself he could do nothing, and that he 
sought not his own will, but the will of the Father who 
sent him. — I furthermore believe that all power was given 
him in heaven and in earth — insomuch that he could not 
only lay down that life which his Father gave him, but 
take it again ; and that he was fully competent to do what- 
ever was in his commission — that although he knew what 
was in man, and searched the hearts of mankind, yet that 
he knew not the day of judgment — that, nevertheless, he 
was ordained of God to judge the quick and the dead, and 
that God, by him, will hereafter judge the secrets of all 
men, according to the gospel. In fine, I believe that when 
he had done and suffered the whole will of God, he died 
on the cross, making complete atonement for the sins of 
his people, and that in consequence of this, God has 
highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above 
every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should 
bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things 
under the earth ; and that every tongue should confess that 
Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father" 

These, are among the things which I believe concern- 
ing Jesus Christ, as a person or being distinct from the 
one God, his Father ; which things I cannot believe to be 
true with respect to this one God. And these are the 
things which I have exhibited as articles of my belief 
in my letter addressed to Mr. T. and which he says are 
totally opposite to his sentiments ! — Most devoutly do I 
hope that in saying this, he has not expressed what he 
designed^ But if he has done it, most sincerely do I 
lament his incredulity. 

On the page of Mr" T's. letter, from which I made the 
last quotation, he has thrown together several mutilated 
and disjointed passages from my publication, which I 
consider as calculated to make a very improper impression 
on the minds of his readers, and to place me in a very 

F 



42 

unfavourable, if not a ludicrous point of light, as a writer. 
" On these things, # found in different parts of Mr. N's. 
wonderful production, and which so wonderfully * har- 
monize, 5 he forbears to comment. They are here thrown 
together and presented in one view to his readers, that 
they may consider them well, and make their own re- 
flections." As I am no less desirous than Mr. T. that 
his readers should consider " these things well" it is my 
hope that they will avail themselves of the proper means of 
doing it, by reading them attentively in their original form 
and connexion. Unless they do this, they may be assured 
that it will not be in their power to consider " well" 
what I have written, nor to " make their own reflections," 
in a manner, either to do justice to Mi . T. or myself. 

REVIEW OF TRINITARIAN WRITERS. 

In pages 20 and 21, Mr. Thomas observes, " This 
very consistent writer, (Mr. N.) has laboured through 
thirty pages, in reviewing * the sentiments of several of the 
most celebrated modern writers in relation to the doctrine 
of the Trinity, and particularly in relation to the charac- 
ter of Jesus Christ,' with the professed design to expose 
the clashings of their several theories, See," — On this he 
says, "whatever clashings he may have discovered among 
those authors, he has utterly failed to prove, either hat 
they are disagreed with respect to the essentials of Trini- 
tarianism, or that their scheme is absurd, unreasonable or 
unscriptural." — Here Mr, T. seems to admit that I have 
discovered " clashings" among those authors. But they 
are not so great, in his estimation, as to affect the essentials 
of Trinitarian ism. And this I will readily admit as true, 
if that theory is consistent with believing that Jesus Christ 
is the supreme Jehovah, and that the very same Jesus 
Christ is not the supreme Jehovah, But if to believe a 
proposition is true^ with respect to Jesus Christ, and that 
the same proposition _ is not^ true, is inconsistent with 
the essentials of Trinitarianism, I have shown, I think, 
that all the theories of the writers above referred to, cannot 
be consistent with the essentials of the Trinitarian doctrine. 
But if I have not successfully done this, why has not 
Mr. T. exposed the failure of my attempt ? 

If practicable, and had he shewn that the seeming 
contradictions of those writers arc not real, and that they 
are all consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity, he 
would have conferred upon me a great obligation ; as, in 
this case, J. might learn what is the latitude of that doc ? 



43 

trine, and find among its professors, those, whom I had 
considered as denying its essentials. 

Is it not essential to the doctrine of the Trinity, that God 
exists in three distinct persons or agents, equal in power 
and glory ? Is it not essential also to this doctrine, that 
Jesus Christ, in what is called his lowest character, is truly 
a man ; and that in this character he began to exist in the 
reign of Cesar Augustus ? But how 7 many are there, at 
the present day, denominated and acknowledged as Trini- 
tarians, who deny the supposed truth of these Trinitarian 
doctrines? Since then, the assumption of the Trinitarian 
name seems to give currency to almost any sentiments, as 
consistent with the essentials of the Trinitarian doctrine, 
may it not reasonably be expected that the substance not- 
being insisted on, the shadow will not for a long time, be 
considered as a test of orthodoxy, or required as a term of 
christian communion ? In the hope and expectation of 
this, I dismiss this strange and multiform subject, and 
turn my attention to several 



On which Mr. Thomas seems to place much depen- 
dence as furnishing proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, 
and of the supreme Deity of Christ. The first text which 
he quotes, (p. 21,) in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity 
is — " There are three that bear record in heaven, the 
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and these three 
are one," 1 John v. 7. — " These, (observes Mr. T.) are 
propositions that ought to be believed upon the divine 
declaration, although there is that contained in them, 
which it is impossible to explain, and which it would be 
presumptuous to attempt to explain." — As the declara- 
tion of Mr. T. with respect to " these propositions," is 
but human, it is not to be admitted as unquestionably 
true. And that it is entitled to little or no credence, is the 
belief of many eminently learned and pious men. If 
their belief with respect to the propositions in question be 
correct, these propositions are not to be believed " upon 
divine declaration," as divine declaration does not sup- 
port them. It is the belief of these men, that the propo- 
sitions contained in the text are not genuine scripture, 
but an unwarranted interpolation. In support of this 
their belief, they produce a mass of evidence, which they 
consider as amounting to demonstration. And this ev- 
idence is so satisfactory, that som e of the most learned of 
Trinitarian christians, who have paid the most careful 
attention to the subject, reject the text containing the prop- 



44 

ositions, as spurious. Nor do they hesitate to say, " We 
are unspeakably ashamed that any modern divines should 
have contended for retaining a passage so indisputably 
spurious" — Although I am not prepared to use this 
strength of expression, yet I cannot but think it very 
disingenuous in Trinitarian writers to quote the text in 
proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, without so much as 
intimating that its genuineness, is, at least, very doubtful. 

But were the text to be admitted as having been given 
by the inspiration of God, yet of what avail is it in favour 
of the doctrine of the Trinity ? In what sense are the 
" three one" but that of consent of testimony ? or that 
they all agree in bearing the same testimony ? for it is of 
a record or testimony, of which John is here speaking. 
The plain and obvious import of the passage seems to be, 
The Father ; the Son, and the Holy Spirit bear testimony 
of Christ, as if they were one witness, so perfectly do 
they harmonize in bearing witness to him. Thus Beza 
inteiprets the text, These three are one in consent. And 
Calvin says, in that, These three are one, the apostle refers 
not to their essence, but rather to their consent. — Admit- 
ing the text to be genuine, this, I think, ought to be ad- 
mitted as its genuine commentary. Nor do I think it 
44 presumptuous" thus to explain it. But if there is that 
contained in it, "which it is impossible to explain, and 
which it would be -presumptuous to attempt to explain," 
as Mr. T. supposes, I see not with what propriety he can 
attempt so to explain, as to find in it a Triune God." 
Thus to explain the text, may well be considered as 
highly presumptuous. * 

The next passages quoted by Mr. T. on which he relies 
as evidence in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, are 
the following — " Let us make man in our image, after our 
likeness, Gen. i. 26.— the man is become as one of us, 
to know good and evil." Gen. iii. 22. In these texts, Mr. 
T. observes " that God clearly intimated that there is in 
himself a plurality of persons. And this idea, whatever 
Anti-trinitarians may pretend to the contrary, is certainly 
strengthened by the feet, ' that the word Elohim, in He- 
brew, translated God, is in the plural ;' and that a number 
of other words, repeatedly used with application to him, 
are also in the plural number, as found in the original." — 
In relation to the above quoted texts, I have to observe, 
that if they intimate that there is a plurality of persons 
in God, yet we cannot learn from them the exact number \ 
whether it be three, or more, or less. But should it be 
admitted that the number is to be limited to three ; yet, 
can it reasonably be urged that this plurality of persons 



45 

exist mi, or constitute one God? Were Mr. T. to hear a 
painter or statuary say to his two sons," let us make a 
portrait or statue in our image, after our likeness," would 
he infer, or be likely to believe that the father and his sons 
constituted one man, or that there was a plurality of persons 
in the father ? But do not the pronouns our and us, in 
the above quoted text, intimate that the speaker addressed 
a person or persons, — a being, or beings, as distinct from 
his own person or being, as the supposed sons of the paint- 
er or statuary are distinct from himself? — The probabili- 
ty however, is, that God spake to but one other person, 
and that this person was his Son, by or through whom 
he made the worlds, and all things visible and invisible. 
But do the texts intimate that this other person or being, 
is one and the same being with the Speaker ? 

As to the evidence which the " word Elohim" is sup- 
posed to afford of a " plurality of persons" in one God, 
I must believe that it is exceedingly feeble and precarious. 
Although the word is, in its form, plural, yet Trinitarian 
writers who are criticks in the Hebrew language, admit 
that it sometimes is not of plural signification, but " is 
used in reference to one, as in Psalm xlv. 7. m Hosea i. 7, 
and xii. 3. It is also to be observed, that it is generally, 
and I believe always rendered in the Septuagint, Theos, 
which word is singular both in form and import. 

For the information of such of my readers as are not 
acquainted with the subject, the following brief account is 
submitted to their consideration : 

" The Septuagint is the name given to a Greek version 
of the books of the Old Testament, from its being suppos- 
ed to be the work of seventy-two Jews, who are usually 
called the seventy interpreters, because seventy is a round 
number. Ptolemy Physion, Philo, and Josephus, speak of 
this translation as made by seventy-two interpreters, by 
the care of Demetrius, Phalerus, in the reign of Ptolemy 
Philadelphus, about 240 years before Christ. All the 
christian writers during the first fifteen centuries of the 
christian era, have admitted this account of the Septuagint 
as undoubted fact. This is the version, and this o?ily 7 
which is constantly used and quoted in the gospels, and 
by the apostles, and which has thereby received the highest 
sanction which any writings can possibly receive." 

Now, since the Old Testament scriptures were trans- 
lated into the Greek language, by so great a number of 
Jews who may reasonably be supposed to have been the 
most distinguished for their learning and integrity, must it 
not be admitted, that the translation is as correct, as hu- 
man learning and uprightness could reasonably promise ? 



46 

Did not these learned translators tinder stand 'the import 
and force of their own language, as well, and indeed much 
better than smatterers, or even the greatest proficients in 
that language among us ? Were they not competent to the 
faithful discharge of their important trust ? Or could they 
have been under any temptation to perform this work 
unfaithfully? Had their translation been dangerousl y, or 
in any considerable degree incorrect, it cannot reasonably 
be supposed that our Saviour and his apostles would have 
constantly used and quoted it. If then the word Elohim 
imports plurality of persons in God, how is it to be ac- 
counted for that the translators, native Jews, and seventy - 
two in number, should, in translating it, always use the 
word Theos, which answers to the Latin word Deus, and 
the English word God, and is singular both in form and 
construction ? If this rendering were incorrect, and espec- 
ially if the incorrectness were such as to involve a danger- 
ous and destructive doctrine, would not Jesus Christ, 
instead of giving it practical approbation, have pointed out 
the error, guarded his disciples and followers against it, 
and unequivocally [ condemned it ! 

These things, it should seem, need but to be stated to 
convince every candid and attentive mind, that the word 
Elohim^ so far from establishing the doctrine of the Trin- 
ity, furnishes strong, i7 not conclusive evidence, that God 
is simply CW,— one in essence, in person, in being. i And 
this is the doctrine, which the Jews have generally, if not 
universally, in all periods, considered as contained not 
only in the word Elohim, but in all their sacred books. 

Not only, " is the word Elohim, (Mr. T. observes,) 
in the plural," but " a number of other words with appli- 
cation to God." This is readily admitted. But what is 
to be inferred from this circumstance ? Mr. T. supposes 
the existence of three equal persons in one God. But why 
not the existence of three equal Gods ? This inference, it 
might be urged, is quite as natural as the other. But neith- 
er of them, it is believed, ought to be admitted as correct. 
The truth is % that these same words are almost invariably 
used in the singular number, and are of singular import. 
Should the circumstance then, that in a few instances they 
have the plural form, seem to afford some evidence in fa- 
vour of a plurality of persons in God, yet does not the cir- 
cumstance that they are almost uniformly of the singular 
number, furnish overbalancing, if not demonstrative evi- 
dence, that God is but one person. 

In this connexion I would briefly observe, that the word 
Jehovah is considered by Trinitari in writers as peculiar 
to God, and as expressive of his incommunicable perfec- 



47 

tions. And because it is applied to Christ, they infer that 
he is the self-existent God ? But when it is considered 
that this same word is rendered Kurios in the Septuagint, 
which in Latin is Dominus, and in English Lord, and is 
applied to men, must not the Trinitarian argument be 
verv far from conclusive, or even forcible? 

" Should it be asked, (soys Mr. T. p. 22) what evi- 
dence there is, that these three, (the Father, Son and 
Spirit) are truly divine, and yet are one God ? I answer, 
that the Bible, in ascribing divine titles, divine perfections, 
divine works, and divine honours to each, does declare 
that each possesses real divinity, or that it is proper to 
call each of them God ; and yet the same Bible asserts 
that there is but one God, but one supreme Jehovah." 
As I have already anticipated this argument in what I 
have said respecting the^ Holy Spirit, and the dependence 
of Jesus Christ on his Father, I shall say but little in this 
place in reply to it. 

Were it a fact, as Mr. T. seems to suppose, that the 
Bible ascribes to Christ underived and independent titles, 
perfections and works, and supreme divine honours, it 
might be so far to his purpose as to prove that Christ is 
the supreme and independent God. But does the Bible 
ascribe these titles, &c. and this honour to Jesus Christ ? 
That it does not, cannot, I should think, reasonably be 
questioned. And as I have already given my principal 
reasons for this my belief, I shall add nothing more at 
present in support of it, and especially as Mr. T's. as- 
sumption is accompanied w'tihneither evidence nor reasona- 
ble argument. If Mr, T. means to be understood as 
saying that the Bible asserts of the Father, Son and Spirit, 
that each is the supreme God, as I suppose he does, I 
do not see but it necessarily follows that these three are 
three supreme Gods. But can three supreme Gods, be 
but one supreme^ God ? This Mr. T. will, I presume, 
deny as an utter impossibility. But is it not equally im- 
possible that three distinct persons or agents, to each of 
whom belong all possible and infinite perfections, should 
constitute but one supreme God, and indeed, that they 
should exist ? If not, I wish to see some reason assigned 
for it. Besides, as the supreme God, according to the 
Trinitarian theory, consists of three persons equal in pow- 
er and glory, and as each of these persons is the supreme 
God, must there not be nine equal persons ? In saying 
this, I am far from experiencing any emotion of levity, or 
of a ludicrous nature. Seldom has my mind been in a 
more serious and solemn frame. But the above sugges- 
tion was made to shew the extravagant consequences to 



48 

which the doctrine I oppose, seems to lead. I pray God 
that it may have the. designed effect. 

In page 23, Mr. T. inquires what I mean, where I say 
of Christ " that he is neither the one God, nor a man, but 
a real and proper person or being, who holds a middle 
place between both." As I have in the preceding part 
of this work expressed my views of this subject, I shall 
add nothing more than to express what I think myself 
warranted to believe with respect to the question, wheth- 
er " Christ is a creature ?" This question I have no de- 
sire to evade ; but as it is very ambiguous, I know not 
whether I shall be able satisfactorily to answer it. What 
is a creature ? Our globe is a creature, which was pro- 
duced from nothing — the corporal part of Adam was a 
creature, although formed of pre-existent materials — the 
body of Eve was a creature, which was formed from a 
constituent part of Adam — man, as consisting of body 
and soul, is a creature, and he is a new creature when 
renovated by the Spirit of God. In how many senses 
the word creature is to be understood I know not; nor 
can I either know or conceive how many, and various are 
the modes of creation, or what is the nature of any mode. 
But if by '" creature" be meant a produced and dependent 
being, then I should say, in answer to the question, that I 
consider Christ as a creature. But whether he were 
produced from nothing •, or from something, I presume 
not to say, This subject I acknowledge as a mystery, 
which to my mind is utterly incomprehensible. To 
say however with Mr, T. that he is a man or a creature, 
and as " truly so, as any of Adam's race" I may not — 
I dare not. This declaration I consider as # exceedingly 
degrading to the character of Christ, who was in the begin- 
ning with God, and who is styled God. Nor should I 
dare say this with respect to any supposed " lowest char- 
acter" of Christ. Such a character, the Bible, as I con- 
ceive, never ascribes to him. As man he is God's 
fellow. But otherwise than this, he neither is, as I con- 
ceive, nor ever was, a man. 

Mr. Thomas proceeds to ask what we are to under- 
stand by several passages of scripture, which he seems to 
consider as affording proof of the deity of Christ. To 
these I shall briefly attend in the order in which they are 
placed. 

" The mighty God and everlasting Father" Isa. ix. 6. 
That these titles are applied to Christ will readily be 
admitted, and as worthy of " all acceptation." But does 
this their application prove that Christ is the supreme 
Jehovah, or the independent God? If so, it proves, it 



49 

should seem, that the Supreme and independent God was 
once a u child" — was " born" — was a u Son" and was 
" given" to die for a guilty world ! But thus to represent 
or speak of the unchangeable God seems to me to be 
highly improper and irreverent. 

Although Jesus Christ is " called," or denominated 
Mighty and God ; or as we have it in our common ver- 
sion, " mighty God," yet is not this title given him ? 
The general import and fitness of this title, as applied to 
the Messiah, we may learn from many passages in the 
New Testament, and particularly where we read, " God 
has given him a name, which is above every name," that 
every creature should submit to his authority, " to the 
glory of God the Father ." And notwithstanding Christ 
is " called" the everlasting Father, yet it is to be remem- 
bered that the supreme God is his Father. By the terms 
" everlasting Father," we are to understand, I am persuad- 
ed, the Father or Lord of the everlasting age, that age or 
dispensation which is to continue to the end of time, the 
age of the gospel ; concerning which the apostle observes, 
that to Christ only, and not to angels, God hath put in 
subjection this age to come. 

" Whose goings forth have been from of old, from 
roerlasting" Mic. v. 2. This description, it is admitted 
also, is applied to Christ or the Messiah, whose going 
forth did not commence with his birth from the womb of 
the virgin, but took place from everlasting, of old, from 
the beginning, or " ever the earth was." Christ, the Son 
of God, was from " everlasting," as he was " brought 
forth" by his Father, or existed, when there were neither 
" depths nor hills." 

" God was' 'manifest in the flesh." 1 Tim. iii. 16. There 
is much reason to believe that this is not the ancient and 
true reading. By some it is thought that the passage 
should be read, He that was manifest, viz. he who is 
called God in the beginning of St. John's gospel. And 
does not the declaration of the faithful and true Witness, 
that his Father is the only true God, seem to favour this 
belief ? This only true God, the Father, is never said to be 
manifest in the flesh. But should it be admitted that he 
was manifest in the flesh, may it not reasonably be sup- 
posed the import of the expression is, that the Father 
"was iii Christ,'' " dwelt in him," and by or through 
him manifested his " name," his power and glory ? But 
should it be urged that the supreme God was manifest in 
the flesh, by being " made flesh" by union to a human 
body, what then I would ask can be intended, by his hav- 
ing been "justified in the Spirit," and " received up into 



50 

glory ?" Did the supreme God ever leave the mansions of 
glory, become incarnate, suffer and die ! And after this, 
was he received from this lower world up into glory ? By 
whom, was he received ? How can these things be ! 

" The great God, and our Saviour" Tit. ii. 13. — The 
whole verse of which these words are a part, reads thus in 
the common^ version ; " Looking for that blessed hope, 
and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our 
Saviour Jesus Christ." The literal translation of the 
Greek is, And the appearing of the glory of the great God, 
and of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Nor will Mr. T. or any 
man acquainted with the Greek language, object to this 
rendering as strictly literal and correct. What then is the 
obvious import of the passage but this — Our Saviour 
Jesus Christ will, at the consummation of time, appear in 
his own, and attended by his Father's glory ! By the 
great God, therefore, must necessarily be understood, as it 
appears to me, the one God, even the God and Father of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, " who is oyer alland above all." 
The title, the great God, is never in scripture applied to 
any other person or being, but to the supreme Father. 

" The First and ' the Last." Rev. xxii. 13. Jesus 
Christ is the beginning of the creation of God — the first 
born of every creature. No person or being of his rank 
and office ever existed before him, or will ever exist in 
future time, or in eternity. Of Christ it may be truly 
said, that he is the first and the last, as he never had a 
predecessor, and will never have a successor like him in 
character and office. 

"The same yesterday, to-day and for -ever, .". Heb.xiii. 8. 
Does the term yesterday import the eternity of Christ's 
existence ? or do the terms to-day and forever, import 
that he is the supreme Jehovah ! 

The apostle in this passage speaks of Christ as the 
object of the christian's faith at that time, as he had been 
the object of faith to other christians who were then dead ; 
and as the object of faith to christians to the end of the 
world. This object of faith is the same Saviour, the same 
Jesus Christ now, as he ahvays has been, and he will 
always remain the same. 

" The true God." 1 John v. 20. This title is, by the 
apostle, applied to God the Father. That the reader may- 
be satisfied that this is the case, he has already been referr- 
ed to a late publication, entitled " Things set in a proper 
light, &c." 

"The Almighty." Rev. i. 8. That this title also is 
applied to God the Father, we have much reason to be- 
fieve. But should it be applied to Jesus Christ, yet the 



51 

all power which he possesses is a derived power, if his 
own declaration is to L>e credited. " Jesus came and spake 
unto them, (his disciples) saying, all power is given unto 
me in heaven and in earth." 

Overall, God blessed forever '." Rom. ix. 5. To this 
passage I have already particularly attended. 

" Before Abraham was, I am" John viii. 58. To 
understand the import of / am, the context is to be con- 
sulted. t " Your father Abraham, (said Christ to the 
Jews with whom he w r as conversing,) rejoiced to see my 
day ; and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews 
unto him, thou art not fifty years old, and hast thou seen 
Abraham ?'' To this question, " Jesus said unto them, 
verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I 
am," or / was. I existed before the birth of Abraham. 
This seems to be the plain and obvious import of the 
terms. And thus the Jews appear to have understood 
them ; for believing, as they did, that he had not existed 
half a century, " they took up stones to cast at him," as a 
man who had uttered an egregious falsehood. Or the 
meaning may be, that Christ was superior to Abraham. 

Mr. T. observes, that Christ in saying, " Before Abra- 
ham was, I am," assumed the very name by which the 
God of Israel made himself known to Moses, and which 
all agree is descriptive of a self-existent being." But this 
assertion is not founded on fact* if the Septuagint transla- 
tion of the^ text is correct. And that it is correct, will 
hardly admit of doubt, when it is considered that Christ 
and his apostles gave their ^united testimony to that 
version of the Jewish scriptures as correct, by always 
quoting from it. 

Christ " thought it not robbery to be equal with God." 
Phil. ii. 6. This text seems to be considered by Mr. T. 
and others as furnishing unequivocal evidence that Jesus 
Christ is the supreme and independent Jehovah. But that 
it really does so, ought not hastily to be admitted. Is it 
certain that the text, as we find it in the common version, 
is correct ? It is thought by men of the deepest erudition, 
as well Trinitarians as Antitrinitarians, that this is very far 
from being the case. But should the translation be con- 
sidered as unquestionably correct, yet does the word 
equal import strict equality ; or that Christ, the Son of 
God, is equal to his Father in power and glory, and in all 
respects ! Should this be admitted, must not the exist- 
ence of two equal Gods be also admitted ! If there is a 
God, and another who is equal to him in nature, perfec- 
tions and authority, the latter, so far as I can see, must be 
as truly a God, in the highest sense, as the former. Nor, 



52 

as I conceive,can this inference be evaded, by the pretence 
that they are not two Gods, but that they are one being, 
and therefore but one God, To reason in this way, is no 
more satisfactory than to say, that a being is equal to him- 
self, or itself. 

But if Jesus Christ be equal, in the strict^ sense of the 
word, to God his Father, and it yet be denied that there 
are two supreme Gods, then it must be admitted that Jesus 
Christ is the one supreme God. And that he really is so, 
is the belief of Mr. T. But according to his belief must 
not the text be read thus — " The supreme God, being in 
the form of the supreme ; God, thought it not robbery to be 
equal to himself V Besides, must not this be the construc- 
tion of the subsequent context — " The supreme God 
made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the 
form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men ; 
and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, 
and became obedient unto death, even the death of the 
cross. Wherefore the supreme God also hath highly 
jexalted the supreme God, and given him a name which is 
above every name, that at the name of the supreme God 
every knee should bow, and that every tongue should 
confess that the supreme God is Lord, to the glory of the 
supreme God, even the Father of the supreme God!" 

Who but must revolt at a construction, incongruous 
and shocking like this ! But such, I conceive, must be 
the construction of the text under consideration, and its 
context, should it be admitted that Christ is the supreme 
God, or equal to the supreme God, the Father. Should 
Mr. T. however, object to this construction as strained 
and unjust, I am unable, I confess, to discover any valid 
ground for his objection. Nor do I see but he must of 
necessity admit, that if Jesus Christ is the supreme God, 
this same supreme God was made in the likeness of men, 
that he was obedient — died on the c?vss, was by God 
highly exalted — had a name given him by God — and that 
this supreme God is to be reverenced to the glory of God his 
Father ! If Mr. T. will not admit all this, as perfectly 
accordant with his views of the character of Christ, I 
Would suggest whether, in order to be consistent with him- 
self and with the truth, as contained in the passage in 
question, he must not consider the passage viewed in con- 
nexion with the context as importing— that " Christ, who 
being, or having been in the form or likeness of God, was 
not eager m retaining that form or likeness to God ; but 
that on the contrary he humbled, or emptied himself, &c." 
Although I would not peremptorily assert that this is the 



53 

just import of the text, yet I think it highly probable that 
it is. 

Page 24, Mr. T. asks, " If Christ is no more than a 
creat are ■, how is it that all the angels of God are 
required to worship him, and that all men are re- 
quired to ' honour the Son even as they honour the 
Father,' the supreme Jehovah ?" — To this I reply, — 
All the angels of God are required to worship, or be sub- 
ject to Christ, not as the supreme Jehovah, but as " the 
first begotten" of the supreme Jehovah. All men are 
required to honour the Son even as they honour the 
Father, because the Father " hath committed all judgment 
to the Son; and hath given him authority to execute 
judgment also." But can we consistently give precisely 
the same honour to a dependent person or being, as to that 
being on whom he depends for "judgment" and " au- 
thority" to execute it ! Or can Ave give precisely the 
same honour to two independent persons or beings without 
incurring the guilt of idolatry ? We may indeed honour 
the Son as God's messenger and representative. This we 
are required to do. And in doing it we honour both the 
Son and the Father. But " fee that honoureth not the Son, 
honoureth not the Father which sent him." 

Same page Mr. T. observes, that " the same God who 
commands them (creatures) to worship Christ, forbids 
their worshipping any being but himself." Hence he 
seems to infer that Christ is the supreme Jehovah. This 
kind of reasoning, while it may appear specious, and be 
even conclusive to those who are in the habit of receiving 
assertion for argument, can have no weight, I should 
think, with the well-informed and attentive mind. — It is 
a well known fact to all who have attended to the subject, 
that the Greek word, which is translated to worship, 
imports a bending of the body, or a prostration of it to the 
earth, in token of respect and honour. It is used promis- 
cuously in scripture ,_ to signify both divine worship, 
and the honour paid to distinguished personages. 
Agreeably we read, " All the congregation blessed the 
Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, 
and worshipped the Lord and the king.** From this it 
is plain that the word worship, does not exclusively signi- 
fy supreme homage, or that homage which is due to God 
alone. Is it true, then, that God forbids us, as Mr. T. says 
he does, to worship, or respect^ or honour, any being but 
himself? Were the congregation of Israel forbidden to 
worship or honour their king ? Instead of forbidding, God 
as explicitly requires his creatures to honour or worship the 
king, and those who are their parents, as he does to honour 
or worship his Son. The truth is, that God requires us 



54 

to worship or honour himself alone as the only supreme 
God — to worship or honour Jesus Christ as his Son or 
first begotten, and to worship or honour other persons, 
according to their worth and rank respectively. 

" By him (Christ) were all things created that are in 
heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, wheth- 
er they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or pow- 
ers : all things were created by him and for him : and he 
is before all things ; and by him all things consist" Col. i. 
16, 17. The design of the apostle, here, seems to be to 
prove that Jesus Christ is neither a man, nor yet the su- 
preme Jehovah. In the two verses immediately preceding 
this passage, he says, that " we have redemption through 
his blood (the blood of Christ) even the forgiveness of our 
sins," — that " he is the image of the invisible God,the first 
born of every creature." This representation cannot agree 
with the character of any mere man, unless a mere man is 
the first born of every creature, which will not, I would 
presume, be pretended. Nor can this representation be 
considered as descriptive of the character of the self -ex- 
istent Jehovah, unless the self-existent Jehovah may be 
considered as having shed hig own blood for the remission 
of sins, and as having been the image of himself ! Yet by 
this same Jesus Christ " were all things created," all the 
various ranks of men and angels — the visible and invisible 
thrones, dominions, principalities and powers, that are in 
heaven and in earth. All these things were created by 
Jesus Christ, as the agent of his Father, " by whom he 
made the worlds." In perfect accordance with this view of 
the subject, we read, " To us there is but one God, the 
Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Ch?ist r 
by whom are all things." And as all things were created 
by him as his Father's agent, and by power received from 
his Father, so they were made also for him—lo be in 
subjection to him — " that in all things he might have the 
pre-eminence." He must of course then have been before 
the all things which were created by him and for him. 
And by him all things consist. As God made all things 
by him, so also he upholds and preserves all things by 
him. Agreeably, Christ is said to " uphold all things by 
the word of his power," the power of God the Father, 
communicated to him. 

But notwithstanding God made all things by and for 
Jesus Christ, to be in subjection to him, yet it is always 
to be understood that all things were derived from God 
as the primary and supreme cause, and that he is the only 
independent possessor and governor of all things. For, al- 
though " all things arc put under him, (Christ,) it is 



55 

manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things 
under him." 

"And every creature which is in heaven, and on the 
earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and 
all that are in them, heard I saying, blessing and honour, 
and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the 
throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever" Rev. v. 13- 
Mr. T. if I understand him, endeavours to prove that 
every creature without exception " joins in this universal 
song of praise to the Lamb." But if in this he has suc- 
ceeded, it may be thought, and not without reason, that 
every rational creature, without exception, will be the 
subject of effectual and saving ^ redemption through the 
blood of the Lamb that was slain. But to this sentiment 
I am not prepared to accord my assent. 

How extensively this song of praise " unto him that 
sitteth on the throne and unto the Lamb," is to be consid- 
ered, I presume not to say. But that holy and happy 
beings, both angels and the spirits of just men made per- 
fect, unite, and always will unite in this song, I fully 
believe ; yet I cannot find evidence that the praise which 
they ascribe to the Lamb is precisely the same, as they 
ascribe to him who sitteth upon the throne : or that the 
praise which they ascribe to both, is ascribed to one and 
the same being. Is the appellation Lamb ever applied to 
the one God, the Father ? Was this one God ever slain, 
as was the Lamb ? Or is this " Lamb of God" the same 
being as God himself ! How then is the praise which is 
ascribed to him, the praise which is ascribed to the su- 
preme Jehovah who sitteth upon the throne I 

Observing the order of things as I find them in Mr. T's, 
letter, I shall now give a cursory attention to several 

MISCELLANEOUS ARTICLES. 

Page 25, Mr. Thomas has .introduced several " pas- 
sages of scripture, chiefly for the purpose of inquiring 
whether Mr. N's. views of the Holy Spirit accord with 
them." The passages quoted are, — " When he (the 
Comforter, the Holy Spirit) is come, he will reprove the 
world of sin." " When he, the Spirit of truth is come, he 
shall guide you into all truth, for he shall not speak of 
himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that snail he 
speak." Several other passages of like import are in the 
list of quotations. 

Were there no other passages in the inspired volume, 
than these, to assist us in determining the true character of 
the Holy Spirit, we might, and probably should be led to 



56 

consider the Spirit as a person distinct from any other per- 
son or being. .Bat that this Spirit is a person, and equal 
to the one God, these passages would not be likelj', I 
think, to teach us. It is to be remembered that Christ, a 
little previous to his crucifixion, for the encouragement 
and support of his disciples, observed to them that he 
would pray the Father, and he would give them another 
Comforter, even the Spirit of truth ; and promised them 
that the Father would send them this Comforter, who 
should teach them all things. And this same Comforter 
he speaks of as proceeding from the Father. Here, and 
in the above quoted passages, the Spirit seems to be rep- 
resented as subject to the will of the Father — as the gift 
of the Father, as sent by the Father, as proceeding 
from the Father, as speaking what he should hear, 
or by the instruction of the Father. Now, on the 
supposition that the Floly Spirit is a distinct person, does 
it not appear from this representation that he is not equal 
to the Father ? A dependent person surely cannot be an 
independent person, or equal to him, on whom he depends. 
Does not the doctrine then of three equal persons in one 
God appear, from this single consideration, to be destitute 
of support ? But is it necessary, I would ask, that we 
consider die Holy Spirit as a distinct person from the 
Father, either of equal or unequal rank ? Rather have we 
not much reason to believe that the Spirit is a person only 
in an improper, or figurative sense, or possesses ^.personified 
character ? Conformably to eastern custom we find many 
inanimate, as well as the brutal parts of creation personifi- 
ed, or represented as persons. The sun rejoices and runs 
his race ; the moon is a faithful rvitness in heaven, and 
the stars in their courses fought against Sisera. All the 
heavenly bodies praise God. The fowls of the air, and the 
beasts of the field, froni the mighty elephant, down to the 
little ant, teach mankind important truths ; the fishes of 
the sea declare the glory of God ; trees talk, and choose a 
kingi and even " the thistle, we find, sending to the cedar 
of Lebanon, saying, give me thy daughter to my son to 
, wife." In short, almost every part of creation is represent- 
ed under the notion of a person as possessing human 
powers, and performing human actions. Is it then incred- 
ible that the Holy Spirit, although not a proper person, 
should be personified under another appellation ? That 
the Spirit is indeed thus personified in the above quoted 
passages, will, I think, appear highly probable, if not ab- 
solutely certain, when we consider the manner in which 
Christ's promise of the Comforter or Holy Spirit was 
fulfilled. 



57 

Was not this promise fulfilled, when the diseiples 
of Christ were ".endued with power from on high" — 
when they were " baptized with the Holy Ghost" — 
when the Holy Ghost came upon them" — and when the 
Holy Ghost was " shed forth ?" But can it reasonably be 
supposed that these are proper terms by which to designate 
the Holy Spirit as a proper person ! Now, as the Spirit is 
more strikinglj r personified under the name of Comforter, 
than under any other, and as this personification furnishes 
little or no evidence that the Spirit is a proper and distinct 
person, may we not with much confidence believe, that 
the personality of the Spirit is hvX figurative ? 

Yet Mr. T. has unblushingly treated the subject, as it 
appears to me, in a very irreverent, and even ludicrous 
manner, insinuating that my views of the Holy Spirit justi- 
fy the following, and similar statements : " When she 
breath of God is come, he will reprove the world of sin. 
The breath of God shall not speak of himself \ but what- 
soever he shall hear, that shall he speak. The thing 
said separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work where- 
unto /have called them." — It is with much sorrow and 
deep concern, that I discover that irreverence of the Holy 
Scriptures, and the Great Inspirer of them, which the 
above quotations seem to indicate. These quotations as 
they respect myself, give me little or no disquietude ; but 
as they respect the revelation and the Spirit of God, they 
excite in my breast very painful sensations, and shock me 
almost with horror. Most sincerely do I hope that Mr. 
T's. treatment of the subject was owing to excuseable 
inadvertence. Indeed I cannot but believe, had he duly 
considered, that the person who is " called the Son of 
God," and whom he acknowledges as the supreme Jehovah, 
is "that holy thing," which was born of the Virgin, 
he would not in so wanton a manner have condemned the 
guiltless, and treated with such irreverence the holy book 
of God. I pray God that this sin may not be laidto his 
charge, and that the admonition which it has occasioned, 
may be available to salutary correction. 

In pages 26, 27, Mr. T. endeavours to prove, if I 
understand him, that my " theory undermines, and de- 
stroys the whole work of redemption," as it is incompati- 
ble with the doctrine of " an atonement." His proof of 
this arises from my denial " of the real divinity and the 
real humanity of Christ" and the " personality of the Holy 
Ghost." This denial he expressly says, " completely 
overthrows the atonement," and then observes, " If the 
work of redemption is overthrown, what but inevitable 
destruction and perdition, awaits a sinful ruined world ! " 

H 



58 

That Mr. T. in these remarks, very strongly insinuates, 
that my views^ of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are 
inconsistent with that belief" of the gospel which is necessa- 
ry to salvation, and even a title to the christian name, is too 
evident to admit of doubt. In thus denouncing me as an 
infidel and a reprobate, his denunciation falls not only upon 
a large portion of professing christians, but upon many 
christian ministers, who, judging from their habitual con- 
duct, are eminently the meek and humble followers of the 
Lamb ; and who, it is presumed, have with as much 
diligence, impartiality, and prayerful attention, examined 
the scriptures, that they might know and embrace the 
truth in relation to the Son, and Spirit of God, as Mr. T. 
can be supposed to have done. Whether in thus judging 
and condemning his brethren, he has exercised the spirit 
of Christ, is aquestion, which it becomes him very seri- 
ously to consider. 

It is indeed " a small thing to be judged of man's judg- 
ment." Thus to be judged gives me little or no concern. 
I cannot, however, but feel much concern for those, who, 
as it appears to me, veiy unreasonably, rashly, and pre- 
sumptuously, judge and condemn their brethren as infi- 
dels ; as overthrowing the work of redemption, and as 
doomed to inevitable destruction and perdition, because 
they cannot assent to propositions which they cannot 
understand, and which these their judges have been able 
neither to explain nor substantiate. 

However incorrect my sentiments may be, Mr. T. 
cannot be ignorant that I have explicitly declared my be- 
lief in the doctrine of the atonement as effected by the 
obedience, sufferings and death of the Son of God, whom 
I acknowledge as the brightness of the Father's glory, and 
the express image of his person ; and whom I consider as 
unspeakably, inconceivably more excellent, dignified and 
glorious than any human or angelic being. Nor is he 
ignorant that I consider the Holy Spirit as eternal — as in- 
cluded in the self-existence of the one God, and as denot- 
ing his fulness, or all- sufficiency. Yet in the estimation of 
Mr. T. this my belief completely overthrows the atone- 
ment, and leads to inevitable perdition! 

I cannot but hope that a careful review of the subject 
will convince this gentleman that he has too hastily^ and 
very improperly decided upon it. But should his decision 
be correct, will it not equally, to say the least, affect his 
o\\ n hypothesis, agreeably to which, " it was necessary, that 
he who was to make the atonement, should die to make 
it.' 1 " The necessity of this, (Mr. T. observes,^ appears 
'from the feet, that he did lay clown his life. Vet it was' 



59 

impossible that divinity should suffer and die." This is 
Mr. T's. view of the subject. But as " divinity could 
not suffer and die," he who did lay down his life, mui*, 
according to this hypothesis, have been a mere creature, 
and " as truly so as any of Adam's race." This conclu- 
sion, I am persuaded, admits of no evasion. Here, then, 
we find the doctrine of the atonement founded on the 
sufferings and death of a mere man ! And this doctrine 
must be believed, or " inevitable destruction and perdition, 
awaits" the infidel. And here we find " clearly express- 
ed God's infinite abhorrence of sin !" 

To elude the force, and as I believe, the correctness of 
this representation, Mr. T. has recourse to the " complex 
character" of Christ. As "it was impossible that divini- 
ty should suffer and die," he infers " the necessity of 
Christ's becoming man, or taking upon himself the seed 
of Abraham. This qualified him," he observes, " to lay- 
down his life, while the infinite dignity and perfection of 
his nature, as a person truly divine, made his death fully 
expressive of Jehovah's displeasure against sin, and hence 
enabled him to make an adequate atonement for it." That 
this representation of the character of Christ should be sat- 
isfactory to Mr. T. or any man of reflection, I must con- 
sider as very strange. Whether he has conveyed by it, 
or meant to convey any distinct or intelligible ideas, I 
know not. But I would ask, and with much seriousness 
and concern, whether he means to say, that Christ, in 
what he calls his highest character, really suffered and 
died ! If " Christ became man, by taking upon him the 
seed of Abraham," was this same Christ, I would ask, 
notwithstanding this transmutation, still truly divine, or 
the supreme Jehovah ! And did his thus becoming man, 
" qualify him," the supreme^ Jehovah, " to lay down his 
life," while the infinite dignity and perfection of his na- 
ture, as a person truly divine, made his death fully expres- 
sive of Jehovah's displeasure," that is, his own displeasure, 
" against sin !" This, as I conceive, is a just and correct 
construction of the passage above quoted. But according 
to this construction, divinity, even the supreme Jehovah 
suffered and died, fully to express his own displeasure 
against sin ! 

Should Mr. e T. object to this representation as foreign 
from his meaning, then he must admit that humanity only, 
or a mere man, suffered and died on the cross to make 
atonement for sin, unless he should attempt to elude this 
concession, by saying that Christ suffered and died in his 
" complex character." And this he seems to say. His 
words are — " Thus it is only by the mysterious union 



60 

between the divine and human natures in the person of the 
Lord Jesus Christ, that he was prepared to go to the cross 
of Calvary, and there in shedding his blood, &c." — The 
person of Christ, then, which person consisted of " divine 
And human natures," went to the cross and shed his blood. 
The supreme Jehovah, and a man united in one person, 
suffered and died on the cross, to " express God's infinite 
abhorrence of sin !" 

Thus, according to Mr. T's. hypothesis, an atonement 
is made for sin, not by the sufferings and death of divinity ; 
for " it was impossible that divinity should suffer and 
die;" and yet it. was made by the sufferings and death of 
divinity ; for " Christ," or the supreme Jehovah, by 
" taking upon himself the seed of Abraham," was qual- 
ified to lay down his life ! And yet it was made by the 
sufferings and death, neither of humanity, nor ef divinity \ 
but by the sufferings and death of humanity and divinity, 
united in one person ; for this " person went to the cross 
of Calvary, and there shed his blood !" This representation 
of the subject involves, as it appears to me, such difficul- 
ties and contradictions, as can never be removed nor rec- 
onciled ; — and such mysteries, as can never be understood 
nor believed. Nor do I hesitate to say, that, if to under- 
stand and believe this strange theory be necessary to sal- 
vation, / see not who can be saved! 

With the view to make it appear that my theory " com- 
pletely overthrows the atonement," Mr. T. further ob- 
serves, "Mr. N. denies that Christ is ' the one God.' " 
fct But does not this God," (Christ) he asks, " thus address 
Israel;***.' Thou shalt know that 1 the Lord am thy Sa- 
viour, and thti Redeemer, the mighty one of Jacob V 4 I 
am the Lord thy God — and thou shalt know no God but 
me ; for there is no Saviour besides me ?' " " Now, (con- 
tinues Mr. T.) if there is no Saviour besides the only 
living and true God, and if Jesus Christ is not this God, 
then Jesus Christ is no Saviour." — This reasoning may 
satisfy Mr. T. and perhaps some others, that Jesus Christ 
is the one God, besides whom there is none else. But 
that it should be satisfactory to himself, or any one else, 
I can see, I confess, no reason. No reference is made to 
Christ in either of the above quoted passages. Several 
commentators on the texts, whom I have consulted, refer 
the terms Saviour and Redeemer, not to Christ, but to 
God. Nor can I but believe, that commentators, generally, 
if not universally, do the same. Now then, according to 
Mr. T's. reasoning, (as Jesus Christ is notAbfc Saviour 
and Redeemer referred to in the passages under considera- 
tion,) there can be w God. I seriously believe that this 



61 

conclusion will follow, on the principles of Mr. T's argu- 
ment. Seldom, if ever, have I seen a solemn and interest- 
ing subject treated in so incautious, so loose, and so ex- 
ceptionable a manner. 

If Mr. T. was led to believe that Jesus Christ is the 
person speaking in the above cited passages, because the 
speaker assumes the titles, Saviour and Redeemer, he 
will be convinced that the ground of his belief is not to be 
relied on, when, on examination, he shall find that the 
title, Redeemer, is, if ever, but once applied to Christ in 
the Bible, and that the title, Saviour, is probably as often 
applied to God, as to Christ. — Besides, it is to be remem- 
bered, that Christ as Saviour, is distinguished from God 
the Saviour, by marks of striking discrimination. Christ 
was born a Saviour — sent to be a Saviour — exalted to be 
a Saviour — raised up to be a Saviour. And it is by, or* 
through this constituted Saviour, " that the kindness and 
love of God our Saviour have toward men appeared." — ■ 
This ' constituted Saviour is, if I understand him, that 
person whom Mr. T. acknowledges as the one God, the 
supreme Jehovah ; and whom he believes it is necessary 
to acknowledge as such, in order to salvation. " For, 
(he observes,) none can be saved but by him." But I 
desire to be thankful on my own behalf, and on the 
behalf of others, that we have a" more sure word of 
prophecy," to which we may repair for instruction, than 
Mr. T's. assumed and extravagant hypothesis. I desire 
also to be thankful that while the scriptures speak of many 
" Saviours," they exhibit but one supreme Saviour, even 
the living, the great and only wise God, who gave his 
Son into the world to carry into effect his glorious and 
saving designs. In this Saviour we may safely repose our 
trust ; for in him is underived and everlasting strength. 

I proceed to consider 

A NUMBER OF CHARGES, 

With the notices taken of them by Mr. T. page 27 of his 
letter. I One charge," brought against me by Mr. N. 
he observes is, " That i have rejected him as a christian 
minister by refusing to exchange with him ; and that this 
I have unkindly done, without assigning to him any dis- 
tinct or definite reasons for it." That he has refused to 
exchange with me, Mr. T. admits. But that he has 
refused to assign to me " a definite reason for this step," 
he says, " is not true." If this charge be an untruth, 
" slanderous and extremely reprehensible," I am truly 
sorry that I have done him the wrong ; and can only 



62 

plead in extenuation of the guilt of my conduct, that it 
originated in ignorance and was committed without design. 

On refusing me ministerial fellowship, I requested Mr. 
T. and the late Dr. Strong, as I have before observed, to 
give me " their reasons in writing" And " this" Mr. T. 
acknowledges, we refused. — Now this is the refusal to 
which I referred, and I know not that I referred to any 
other. And this is the refusal which I did consider as 
unkind ; nor do I now consider it otherwise. — As to any 
distinct and definite verbal reasons, which Mr. T. assign- 
ed for his refusal, I have only to say, I heard none which 
I considered of that description. His reasons, if he as- 
signed any, I must have considered as very vague, indefi- 
nite and evasive. — If, as he noxv says, (although I have no 
recollection of it) he assigned as a reason for not ex- 
changing with me, "that I denied that Jesus Christ is the 
true God, thus making him no more than a created be- 
ing,"-—! cannot but consider it as very indistinct and 
unsatisfactory. 

In case I were to refuse to exchange with Mr. T. and 
to assign as a reason for it, that he believes Jesus Christ to 
be a man, and " as truly was any of Adam's race," thus 
excluding from him all divinity ; or, that he believes 
Jesus Christ to be the " only supreme Jehovah," thus ex- 
cluding from him all humanity, and denying the Father to 
be God, would he consider this reason as distinct and 
definite ! Much less then, I conceive, could I have thus 
considered his alleged reason. 

Mr. T. further observes, that I have accused him of 
having " perseveringly declined to treat with me as an 
offending brother, according to the laws of Christ's king- 
dom." — This I have indeed done, and with much sorrow 
of heart; and most devoutly do I wish that I could con- 
sistently withdraw the charge. But this, I think, I can- 
not do, so long as the statements which I have made, not 
far from the beginning of this letter, remain true, unan- 
swered, and unchallenged. 

Another of Mr. N's. charges against me, says Mr. T. 
p. 28, is, that I " have been instrumental with others, of 
raising a high, and strong, and hitherto insurmountable 
barrier to his communion with, and preaching to a consid- 
erable number, who formerly attended his ministry." — 
Of this charge he complains as unjust and injurious. It 
is, he observes, " undoubtedly understood to import, that 
I have used exertions with that people to induce them to 
have no intercourse of a religious nature with him, (Mr. 
N.) If it does not amount to this, it amounts to nothing." 
i4 This charge, (he adds,) must remain unsubstantiated, 



63 

and is totally unfounded." — How the above charge has 
generally been " understood," I know not, nor have I 
made any inquiry. One of the most respectable and in- 
telligent persons, however, " of the Union Society in 
Braintree and Weymouth," has unsolicitedly observed to 
me, that he did not understand the charge according to 
Mr. T's construction of it, and that he could not conceive 
that Mr. T. himself so understood it. Nor do I think it 
likely that it has ever been so understood by any members 
of that society. But be this as it may, I expected to be 
understood by the charge, that he was instrumental, with 
others, in raising the " barrier" in question, by his refus- 
ing to exchange with me, and by the manner of his 
preaching in that society. t But if the charge, contrary to 
my wish and expectation, is understood by any according 
tc the construction which Mr. T. has given it, it is my 
hope, that in future, they will construe it in a manner 
more natural and just. But notwithstanding the charge 
" is totally unfounded," I can discover as yet no reason 
for retracting it. Nor can I but believe that this same 
barrier would have continued to this day, were it not that 
the present pastor of the u Union Society," apparently 
combines with his " orthodoxy," that " charity," which 
is the brightest ornament of the christian character, and 
which, while it is friendly to christian union, is hostile to 
tiiat "middle wall of partition," which owes its erection 
to human device and intolerance. 

Mr. T. same page, notices with disapprobation, that, 
in my letter addressed to him, I " considered him as hav- 
ing violated that religious and solemn obligation, which 
was created between us, when he received from me, at his 
ordination, the hand of christian fellowship." But why 
have I considered Mr. T. as having " violated that solemn 
obligation ?" Simply because he has refused me christian 
fellowship for my supposed heresy ? No — but because he 
refused me this, without " treating with me, as an offend- 
ing brother, according to the laws of Christ's kingdom." 
For this, I consider him as blameable, and not for acting 
agreeably to the dictates of his conscience. And I am 
very sorry to say, that I now consider his blame as in- 
creased by the manner in which he has attempted to 
vindicate his conduct. He very plainly insinuates that his 
refusal to exchange with me is owing to my having be- 
lieved and represented " the great God, and our Sa- 
viour" a " creature and nothing more," and that I had so 
41 denied the personality of the Holy Ghost, the eternal 
Spirit," as to make " him," only " a breath, an emanation, 
a thing." This insinuation I cannot but view as highly 



64 

unreasonable and unjust, as well with respect to Mr. T* 
us myself. For I had never believed nor represented the 
great God as a creature and nothing more. So far from 
this, that I have always represented him as self-existent, 
independent, and as possessed of infinite and all possible 
perfections, and as the only supreme God. Nor had I ever 
represented the one Lord Jesus Christ, as a creature and 
nothing more, according to the common acceptation of the 
term, creature. Instead of this, I have always represented 
him as a being unspeakably — inconceivably greater, more 
dignified and glorious than such a creature. In doing 
this, I have been so explicit, that I could not have been 
misapprehended.— Nov have I ever represented the " eter- 
nal Spirit" as "a breath, an emanation, a thing," in the 
manner Mr. T. insinuates, if I understand his meaning. 
Why then has he made the above representation, and 
especially when he well knows that I have represented the 
Holy Spirit as self-existent, eternal, &c? That representa- 
tion appears to me to be disingenuous, and calculated to 
make an impression on the minds of his readers very for- 
eign from that which ought to be made. 

44 Such is the ' expedient' upon which Mr. T. relies in 
vindication of his conduct," for rejecting me as a chris- 
tian minister. " Whether it is an honourable one. and 
answers his purpose, I leave for others to judge." Others 
will also judge, whether to believe that Jesus Christ is 
inconceivably superior to a mere creature ; and that he 
is so intimately united to his Father as to be " One" with 
him in the most endearing manner, and that the Holy 
Spirit is self-existent, eternal, &c, is " directly contrary to 
thz scriptures, and subversive of the gospel of the blessed 
God." 

I shall now make a few remarks on what Mr. Thomas 
says respecting 

DOCTOR WATTS AND HUMAN CREEDS. 

" At the beginning of Mr. N's, publication, (observes 
Mr. T.) he has an ' address' which he asserts was prig- 
inally written by Dr. Watts, who in it is represented as 
opposing the Trinitarian scheme, but adduces no evidence 
to prove that he ever wrote it." — He then with the view to 
prove, if I understand him, that the Dr. did not svritc that 
address, refers his readers to the " authentic works, partic- 
ularly the Psalms and Hymns," of that truly great and 
good man, and also to invalidate the " representation," 
made by "Arians respecting him." — This expedient in 
Mr. T. to " answer his purpose," I consider as unfair 



65 

and exceptionable. As to myself, lean truly say that I 
have not insinuated that Dr. Watts was not a Trinitarian, 
when he composed his Psalms and Hymns, but the very 
contrary, as is evident from the N. B. which I added at 
the end of the " address," above alluded to. Nor do I 
think that any " Arian," has charged the doctor with a 
denial of the doctrine of the Trinity, at the time when his 
Psalms, &c. were composed. All that is believed by any 
one, so far as I know, is, that he renounced his belief in 
that doctrine before his death. Nor, to my knowledge, 
does any Trinitarian who has with any considerable care 
attended to the subject, deny, or even question that this 
was the case. I distinctly recollect to have heard it ob- 
served, twenty years past cr more, that the orthodox cler- 
gymen in Boston, who corresponded with Dr. Watts, 
lamented it that " he had so long gazed upon the Soji, as 
to produce blindness." — It has also been observed by 
Trinitarians, and perhaps not without reason, that his 
piece on " The glory of Christ," has been instrumental 
of bringing off more christians from the Trinitarian ground 
than any other publication whatever. _ Nor can it be de- 
nied that Dr. Hopkins and other Trinitarian writers con- 
sider his views of the pre-existence of Christ's soul, as 
very dangerous, and as little, if any better, than Arianism. 
These things considered — and when it is further consider- 
ed that the address in question, breathes the very spirit of 
Dr. Watts, — and that this "address," is ascribed to him 
by his " executors," if documents of the highest authori- 
ty are to be credited, no reasonable doubt can remain, I 
should think, that it is a genuine production of that emi- 
nent man. I fully believe the fact, although I cannot pro- 
duce demonstrative evidence of its truth. Nor, I presume, 
can Mr. T. produce such evidence that his " authentic 
works," are indeed authentic. How does he know that 
these same works are not a forgery of Trinitarians, " writ- 
ten since his death," for the purpose of " adding strength 
and popularity ^ to their cause?" This hypothesis, for 
ought I know, is entitled to as much credence as Mr. T's. 
illiberal suggestion. 

Page 29, Mr. T. seems to think that I have spoken very 
improperly with respect to human creeds. — He observes, 
that in " an address to Trinitarian professors of religion, I 
condemn all creeds and articles of faith, which are not 
expressed in scripture language, however orthodox they 
may be ; and those who use them as terms of christian 
communion, 1 charge for so doing, with a variety of 
heinous sins against the Bible, its Author, and their fellow- 
men. But these censures and complaints," he adds, " ar$ 

i 



66 

altogether groundless." — In reply to this, I have only t© 
say, lhat had Mr. T. thought proper to produce any quo- 
tations froin the " address," to substantiate these offensive 
and heinous u censures and complaints," and had he 
adduced any evidence to prove that they are altogether 
groundless, I should be disposed, in a decorous manner, 
to attend to them. But as he has had recourse to but little 
else than assertion, and that, not the most courteous, I beg 
leave to refer all such readers as are desirous to know what 
the address contains, to the address itself. As to others, 
who are determined not to open their eyes and see for 
themselves, I am constrained sorrowfully to say, that if 
they will " be ignorant, let them be ignorant." 

But Mr. T. continues, — " Orthodox creeds are not 
only proper, but indispensably necessary , as religious 
tests. For since there are certain doctrines, which are 
essential to Christianity, men must believe and love those 
doctrines, in order to be christians ; and hence they must 
profess to believe and love them, that they may give such 
evidence as will justify others in considering and treating 
them as christians* We know, however, that multitudes 
who say they believe in the christian religion, do neverthe- 
less deny every one of its essential doctrines. It is there- 
fore indispensably necessary that the doctrines themselves 
should be explained, or their true sense and meaning 
given ; and that an assent to them, as thus explained, 
should be required, as a term of christian fellowship. 
Now this explanation, or description of the doctrines of 
Christianity, which for the reasons already given, cannot be 
in the words of # scripture, is what we call an orthodox 
creed." — Such is Mr. T's. assertion, and such is his 
method of supporting it. And most sincerely do I hope 
that if he has uttered the words and sentiments of truth and 
soberness, they will be " received with all readiness of 
mind." Nor do I know but they are so received by his 
readers generally. I will however hope that this is not the 
case, as I cannot but apprehend that nis assertion, if be- 
lieved, is calculated to mislead, and if practically regarded, 
to produce the most unhappy and evil consequences. 
Such consequences have indeed, in past times, resulted 
from Mr. T's. orthodox and necessary creed ; and they 
still, in a fearful degree, continue to result from it. 

To the account of orthodox creeds, as the instrumental 
cause, are to be placed a very large portion of the evils, 
both natural and moral, which have visited, distracted, . 
and convulsed the christian world. Nor can this position 
be denied or questioned by any one, who is but moderate- 
ly acquainted with the annals of the christian church. 



C7 

Should it be asked what I intend by an orthodox 
creed ? I answer, the very creed which Air. T. has describ- 
ed — " an explanation of the essential doctrines of the 
christian religion," — an explanation " which cannot be 
in the words of scripture." This, says Mr. T. u is what 
we call an orthodox creed." This same orthodox creed, 
then, does not consist, and " cannot be in the words of 
scripture" — that u form of sound words,'.' that u good 
thing,' 1 which Paul required Timothy to a holdfast," — 
but in the " enticing words of mail's wisdom^' — " words 
which man's wisdom teacheth !'' 

To assent to — to " hold fast" this creed of man's 
device, is " indispensably necessary, as a term of chris- 
tian fellowship." But to " receive the word of God, not 
as the word of man, but as it is in truth the word of God, 
is not to be considered " as a religious test," nor sufficient 
to " give such evidence" to orthodox churches, " as will 
justify them in considering and treating as christians," 
those who assent to the Bible creed, however eminent they 
may be for their knowledge of the Holy Scriptures — how- 
ever distinguished for christian piety, or however exem- 
plary in their moral deportment. Persons of this descrip- 
tion must be refused christian fellowship, and treated as 
" heathen men and publicans," and for no other reason 
than because the}' will not assent to the doctrines of the 
gospel, as " explained" by Mr. T. or because they hold 
the words of God in higher estimation, than the w r ords of 
ignorant and aspiring men, as a religious test. 

Such is Mr. T's. " orthodox creed," and such is one 
of the many evil consequences resulting from it. But in 
this creed, however, " the true sense and meaning of the 
essential doctrines of the christian religion must be given." 
Be it so — yet who is to determine whether this same 
true sense and meaning, be really the true sense and mean- 
ing of the essentials of Christianity ? Shall this important 
question be decided D3 T the Pope of Rome — -by the Pope 
and his Cardinals— by a conclave of bishops — by a gener- 
al council or association — by pastors of churches in their 
individual capacity, or by pastors in connexion with their 
respective churches, consisting as well of women as of 
men ? No little difficulty must arise, I should think, in 
deciding this question. But on supposition this difficulty 
could be surmounted, another, more formidable, and less 
yielding, is to be encountered. — Who is to explain the 
articles of this same orthodox creed ? Is every professing 
christian to explain it for himself, or give it such a con- 
struction as he may think proper ? Should this liberty be 
granted, the supposed good design and effects of the creed 



AS 

must be altogether illusory. But should it not be accord- 
ed, but christians must be obliged to assent to the creed, 
according to the explanation of the creed maker ; or accord- 
ing to the sense given by any particular men, or body of 
men, who that can discern between his right hand and left, 
would assent to it as unquestionably true, or as true but in 
part only, or in a qualified sense ? But if it must be as- 
sented to as hvholly and strictly true, according to any 
supposed definite meaning which may be given it ; where 
is the honest and intelligent christian but would withhold 
from it his assent ? Christian churches would soon lose 
their respectable and conscientious members. Nor could 
any church be formed on this principle, I am persuaded, 
deserving the name of a christian church. 

In this connexion I would ask whetheF an assent to 
" the essential doctrines of Christianity," as contained in 
this " orthodox creed," supposes that all the other doc- 
trines of Christianity, are unessential to Christianity, and 
may, of course, be either believed, or disbelieved, by 
orthodox christians ? Or whether they may estimate them 
as things indifferent and of no importance, without incur- 
ring the displeasure of the great Head of the church, or 
giving offence to orthodox churches ? I ask this question, 
not in a cavilling manner, but with a spirit of seriousness 
and deep concern. I really do not see, according to Mr. 
T's. representation, but all the other doctrines of the Bible 
may be rejected by a person, as of little or no importance, 
if he will but assent to a creed which he supposes contains 
its essential doctrines. For an assent to this creed, "will 
justify others in considering and treating him as a chris- 
tian." But what are these "essential doctrines?" One 
is the doctrine of the Trinity, and perhaps five or six 
more. According to Dr. Emmons, these doctrines are 
the following : " the doctrine of moral depravity, the 
doctrine of regeneration, the doctrine of saints' persever- 
ance, the doctrine of the atonement, the doctrine of the 
Trinity, the doctrine of election, and the general doctrine 
of the decrees." M But though all these doctrines, 
(observes the doctor) are equally fundamental to the 
gospel, yet they may not all be equally fundamental to 
salvation." — Whether Mr. T's. orthodox creed contains 
more essential or fundamental articles than this, I know 
not. But admitting that it does not, and admitting further, 
that with Dr. E. he does not consider the belief of them 
all as necessary k> salvation, then the number of these 
necessary articles must be very small. Now, if an assent 
to these articles be all that Mr. T. would require as a 
" religions test," and as a passport to christian " fellow- 



69 

ship," I see not but he must consider a disbelief of all the 
other doctrines of the gospel, as furnishing little or no 
ground for " considering and treating" such unbelievers 
otherwise than " as christians !" 

For such a creed I can never be an advocate. Nor 
do 1 see how it can be advocated, without an indication 
" of a want of confidence in, and reverence for the scrip- 
tures ;" nor without " trifling with our holy religion, and 
its divine Author." 

But should the consideration of these things be insuffi- 
cient to convince Mr. T. that his theory and practice with 
respect to human creeds are censurably unjustifiable, let 
him bring them to a test which will have an immediate 
bearing upon himself. Let it be supposed that he is not 
by profession, a visible member of Christ's kingdom ; but 
desirous to unite himself to some church. — Can he con- 
scientiously assent to the creed of the church of Rome, 
which requires a belief in the doctrine of transubstantiation, 
and other dogmas equally absurd ? Can he assent to the 
creed of the church of England, which requires belief in 
several articles which he neither does, nor can believe ? 
Can he assent to the creed of the Lutheran church, which 
requires a belief in the doctrine of impanation, or consub- 
stantiation ; that is, " that the matter of the sacramental 
bread and wine remain with the body and blood of 
Christ ?" Can he assent to the creed of the Calvinistic, the 
Arminian, the Baptist, the Quaker, or the Methodist 
church ? To the creed of none pi these churches can Mr. 
T. honestly give his assent, it is presumed, without eras- 
ing some articles and modifying others ? He can assent to 
no Unitarian creed. But can he give his assent to a Trin- 
itarian creed, even so far as respects the Trinity ? This, 
it is presumed, he cannot do in the integrity of his heart, in 
the sense in which many professed Trinitarians hold the 
doctrine. Can he assent to a creed of this description, 
which advocates the doctrine of three distinct Beings, 
equal in power and glory ; and that to each of these beings 
belong all the perfections of the one God ? Or which ad- 
vocates the sentiment, that the terms Father, Son and 
Spirit, import nothing more than three cardinal perfections 
in the one God ! Or which requires the belief that these 
terms imply only three distinct offices in the Godhead .; 
or which requires a belief in the pre-existence of Christ's 
soul? — In these different senses, orthodox Trinitarian 
pastors of churches, and in this region, believe the doctrine 
of the Trinity, if I can understand them. But I am per- 
suaded that Mr. T. could not, with a good conscience, 
assent to either of these explanations of the Trinity. As 



70 

all these creeds then, which, by their respective advocates, 
are considered as very orthodox, will exclude Mr. T. 
from church membership, what course, I desire to know, 
is he to take, in order to enjoy the privilege of obeying the 
command of Christ, " This do in remembrance of me ?" 
Shall he remonstrate to christian ministers and. churches ? 
Shall he urge the plea that he beiieves the Bible to be a 
revelation from heaven ; that he has taken diligent and 
prayerful pains to understand its pure and holy doctrines, 
and that they are the joy and rejoicing of his heart ? Shall 
he urge the plea, or shall others urge it in his behalf, that 
his moral and religious character is fair and unblemished ? 
Or shall he plead that neither Christ nor his apostles, re- 
quired of any one a belief in their orthodox creeds, as a 
religious test ? Or shall he peremptorily assert that his 
oivn creed is infallibly true ? Vain were this remonstrance. 
For " orthodox creeds, are not only proper, but indispen- 
sably necessary, as religious tests." This is a good and 
sufficient reason for the rejection of Mr.T. as an heretick by 
all these churches — by almost the whole of the christian 
world. And that gentleman, to be consistent with himself, 
must approve of it. But is no relief to be found for Mr. 
T. in his thus unpleasant and pitiable situation 9 Is no 
christian minister or church, advocating human creeds, 
liberal enough to receive him to their communion ? This 
is hardly to be admitted but on the supposition that he 
shall be at liberty to assent to the religious test required of 
him, in such a sense as he may think proper to under- 
stand it. 

Were Mr. T. in the situation in which the above sup- 
position has placed him, I very seriously and strongly 
doubt, _ whether, with integrity of heart, he could gain 
admission into any christian church on earth, where his 
faith must be tested by a human creed, " however ortho- 
dox," if he must assent to it according to the explanation 
given of it either by the church, or by the pastor. But if 
human creeds are to be assented to, in one, in the same, 
and in a definite sense, they must be the occasion of an 
abundance of prevarication and ^ hypocrisy, or, of closing 
the door to the Lord's table against all honest, conscien- 
tious and reflecting men. On the other hand, if assent is 
to be given to these same creeds, in any sense, and in 
every sense, they can be considered as religious tests, little 
if any better than turning into a ludicrous farce, a most 
sacred and solemn subject. To treat this subject with 
levity and derision, is very fir from my design, ■ though 
I thus speak.'' Most sincerely should I rejoice were there 
no occasion for speaking in this manner. I have used this 



71 

freedom of speech, not only from a conviction of its cor- 
rectness, but w iih the hope and earnest desire to excite an 
awakened attention to the subject, and to recommend that 
study and veneration of the holy scriptures which 
will effectually annihilate all religious creeds which " stand 
not in the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth," but 
" in the words which man's wisdom teacheth." Alas, 
that so many professing and real christians should be 
apparently under the influence of such blindness, as to 
teach and receive for scripture doctrines the command- 
ments and dogmas of weak and fallible men ! 

Before I dismiss the above quotation, I feel constrained 
briefly to notice the following passage contained in it. 
" We know that multitudes who say they believe in the 
christian religion, do nevertheless deny, every one of its 
essential doctrines." — Most devoutly do I hope, for the 
reputation of my brethren in the ministry, and my fellow 
christians generally, that Mr. T. has used the pronoun we, 
according to the "regal style,"as designating only himself. 
Yet if he means himself only, I cannot but be grieved to 
the very heart at his rash declaration. _ How does he know 
the truth of that declaration ? By a spirit of infallibility ! — 
by an immediate revelation from heaven ? Nothing short 
of this could furnish him with the knowledge which he 
arrogantly, and as I fear, impiously claims. Multitudes of 
professing christians deny every essential doctrine of the 
christian religion I Is this the positive and unqualified 
declaration of a christian minister ! and of the nineteenth 
century of the christian era ? Will the annals of the church 
of Rome furnish an example of arrogance and infallibility 
which will parallel, with this? Is this indicative of that 
charity which " thinketh no evil ?" of that humility, 
moderation, and self- diffidence which the gospel recom- 
mends and inculcates ! Is this the w T ay to promote impartial 
investigation, the cause of truth, christian peace and broth- 
erly love ? Who, that seriously considers the subject but 
must be convinced that it has a tendency directly the re- 
verse of this ! I cannot but hope that a little sober reflec- 
tion will convince Mr. T. that he has uttered himself very 
unadvisedly, and induce him to retract, or suitably qualify 
his offensive, and I must believe, very rash and unfounded 
declaration. 

Apparently with the view to impress the minds of his 
readers with the belief, that the opposers of human creeds, 
as religious tests, require no belief in the truths of scrip- 
ture, as a term of christian communion, Mr. T. inquires : 
" W ho, let me ask — who discover the most reverence for 
God, and regard to his revelation, those who require noth- 



ing but an assent to the words of scripture, as a term of 
communion, or those who require assent to the truths of 
scripture, as a term of communion ?" " If, (he acids) to 
require nothing but an assent to the words of scripture, is 
not an act of trifling with religion and its Author, then I 
know not what trifling means." — -To these remarks, as 
correct^ I readily give my assent ; nor do I doubt that 
they will readily be assented to by every opposer of human 
creeds. But their obvious insinuation and bearing, I 
consider as very disingenuous and unjust. Who are the 
pastors, or where are the christian churches, who " require 
nothing but an assent to the words of scripture, as a term 
of communion ?" With such pastors and churches I 
have no knowledge. Nor, I am fully persuaded, do they 
exist. Opposers of human creeds require an assent to 
what they consider " to be the truths of scripture," and 
as conscientiously, to say the least, as do the advocates of 
such creeds. And as they consider " the form of sound 
words," contained in the scriptures — " the words of God — 
of the Holy Ghost, and of our Lord Jesus Christ" as 
furnishing a much better test of a man's orthodoxy and 
qualification for a seat at the Lord's table, than " the words 
which maris wisdom teacheth," they think it right to ad- 
vocate, and adhere to that form. > This is the only " trifling 
with religion and its Author," with respect to this subject, 
of which they are guilty. They maintain that the Bible 
is a sufficient and complete rule of faith and practice — that 
it is an intelligible and luminous rule — that by this rule 
they are to judge who are admissible to christian commu- 
nion, and who are not, and regulate their conduct accord- 
ingly. If they find evidence from this rule or test, that 
applicants for admission to the Lord's table, believe the 
" truths of scripture," and are in other respects qualified, 
they admit them ; otherwise they do not. This I con- 
sider as a just and fair representation of the whole matter. 
But the advocates for human creeds, as religious tests, not 
satisfied with the Bible, as the rule of faith and practice, 
require an assent to a sort of an appendage to the Bible of 
human contrivance. To this, they require assent, as " in- 
dispensably necessary" to admission " to their commu- 
nion ;" because this creed is " the only nroper test of 
orthodoxy !" " Real christians, (says Dr. Emmons,) see 
the propriety and importance of forming and subscribing 
creeds or confessions of faith. They know that there are 
essential doctrines of the gospel ; they know that these 
doctrines can be ascertained and defined ; and they know 
that when they are ascertained and defined, and thrown 
into the form of a creed, they are the only proper test of 



orthodoxy. They know, that the Bible is not a proper 
test of men's religious sentiments ; for men may profess 
to believe the Bible, while they disbelieve, deny, and op- 
pose all the essential doctrines contained it. Hence they 
see the propriety and importance of a more definite crite- 
rion of orthodoxy ?'• — " They 1 ' indeed " cannot see how a 
gospel church can be formed upon a consistent and per- 
manent foundation, unless they adopt some form of sound 
words, and bind themselves to abide by it." Again — 
*' Those whp are established in the essential doctrines of 
the gospel are wot ashamed to profess them (human creeds) 
before the world, nor afraid to bind themselves to believe 
them, as long as they live, and as long as they exist." 

Such, in part, is the creed of Dr. Emmons, which he is 
neither "ashamed" nor " afraid "to " profess before the 
world." According to this creed, if I understand it, " the 
essential doctrines of the gospel,'' are not so expressed, as 
to render their meaning obvious and easy to be understood. 
" These doctrines," however, can be ascertained and 
defined." But how ? Not by the words of scripture ; but 
by words of human device, " thrown into the form of 
a creed." But by whom are these doctrines to be ascer- 
tained and defined ? By private christians ? No — but 
by creed-makers For should private christians ascertain 
and define these doctrines, in a manner to clash with the 
sentiments contained in orthodox creeds, they are to be 
viewed and treated as hereticks. Men who " sit in 
Moses's seat" must explain the essential doctrines of the 
gospel, and their explanation of them must be assented to, 
and not the doctrines themselves as they stand in the 
Bible, ^ as " the only proper test" of their " orthodoxy." 
This is " indispensably necessary," in order to their 
fellowship with orthodox christians ; for these same 
christians, or rather their guides and dictators, well 
" know, that the Bible is no proper test of metis religious 
sentiments /" Not by the clear and steady light which the 
Bible affords, but by the " sparks which they have kin-^ 
died," they are to ascertain who are to have the privilege of 
obeying Christ's dying command, and who shall be ex- 
cluded from that privilege ! But who can reasonably 
object to this mode of procedure, since " men may profess 
to believe the Bible, # while they disbelieve, deny, and 
oppose all the essential doctrines contained in it ?" But 
when they profess to believe in a human creed, they cannot 
act a hypocritical part ; but must necessarily understand, 
and undoubtinglu believe all its articles ! Besides, as such 
a creed is " a more definite criterion of orthodoxy," than 

the Bible ;" it would be very injurious, and perhaps 



fatal to the cause of orthodoxy., were the Bible, instead of 
this creed, established as a religious test. Indeed, ortho- 
dox christians, or rather ministers, " cannot see how a 
gospel church can be formed, upon a consistent and per- 
manent foundation, unless they adopt some form of sound 
words, and bind themselves to abide by it." — Alas ! how 
deplorable must be the state of our churches — how lamen- 
table must be the decline of evangelical truth, when 
" masters" in our u Israel,'] can see no way to form a 
christian church, on a consistent and permanent founda- 
tion, but by rejecting that " form of sound words" as a 
" test of orthodoxy and bond of christian union, "which was 
given by inspiration of God, and by using in its room, 
" the enticing words of man* s wisdom /" And what must 
we think of these same masters, when they publickly de- 
clare that they " are not ashamed to profess the creeds" 
which are composed of these same words, " before the 
world, nor afraid to bind themselves to believe them, as 
long as they live, and as long as they exist /" But this is 
not all. They are neither ashamed nor afraid to say of 
those, who profess to believe and hold fast the form of 
scriptural sound words, and the truths which they contain, 
that they " symbolize with pagans and infidels," how 
well soever their religious sentiments will bear the scrutiny 
of the " Bible test," or however exemplary, pious, and 
devout, may be the tenor of their moral and religious con- 
duct ! — In fine, they will not admit these same pagans 
and infidels to their christian fellowship and communion, 
unless they will " profess to believe," either explicitly, or 
by implication, " that the Bible is no proper test of men's 
religious sentiments, 1 ' and that the creeds, which, without 
any scriptural authority, they impose upon them, " are 
the only proper tests of orthodoxy !" 

Most sincerely could I wish that this is an inadmissible 
comment on Dr. Emmons' text ; but while I sincerely 
believe that it is not, an imperious sense of duty constrains 
me to enter my most solemn protest against it, as deroga- 
tory to the holy scriptures ; as inconsistent with christian 
liberty ; as a yoke to which christians ought never to bow 
their necks, and as pregnant with incalculable evils to the 
most precious interests of protestantism and our common 
Christianity. 

Nor can I forbear to raise a warning voice to my fellow 
christians in relation to this subject. — Christian brethren, 
" beware of men." " Beware lest any man spoil you 
through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of 
men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after 
Christ." Beware of that insidious policy, which, " laying 



aside the commandments of God/' and the Bible itself as 
a religious test, " teaches for doctrines the commandments 
of men," and which would take from you u the key of 
knowledge" Beware of that unjustifiable and dangerous 
policy which extols human explications of scripture, 
above the sound and wholesome words of inspiration ; and 
which is calculated to make " the word of God of none 
effect." 

How were the holy scriptures superseded by the 
Arabian impostor, but by persuading his followers to be- 
lieve, that the productions of his pen contained a form of 
sound words, superior to those which were delivered by 
j\Ioses and Jesus Christ. To what source are you to trace 
the establishment of the Roman Catholic religion, with 
all its impious absurdities, but to the assumed infallibility 
of the pope, and to the superior excellence of his creed, to 
that of the Bible as a religious test^ ! Consider these things 
well, and receive from them that instruction and that im- 
pulse which may be necessary to preserve to you any por- 
tion of that " liberty whereby Christ hath made you 
free"-— which may be necessary to preserve you from the 
most ignominious thraldom. Assert your religious rights 
and privileges. Acknowledge no man as your master, but 
Christ. Acknowledge no religious test-— submit to no 
term of communion, which h e has not given and impos- 
ed. Observe and do these things, and " ye shall do 
well." But depart from them — and who knows but 
" destruction and misery will be in your ways." 

With the hope that these monitory hints will not be in 
vain, I shall now briefly notice a few things which Mr. 
T. has advanced respecting 

THE CRY AND TRACTICE OF PERSECUTION. 

He observes that "this cry," (theory of Mr. N.) "of 
persecution, is no new thing." " It is a cry, (he contin- 
ues,) which the perverters of the truth have always raised 
against those, who have refused to own and treat them as 
its defenders." — As the cry which I have made of perse- 
cution, according to Mr. T's. own acknowledgment, con- 
sists in speaking of anti-trinitarians as " the dissenting and 
rejected brethren" of Trinitarians, he does not consider it, 
I would hope, as a very bitter, or loud, or alarming, or 
unreasonable cry. But be this as it may, it gives me too 
little concern to take further notice of it. But that he 
should say that the reformers from popery — the many 
martyrs to papal bigotry and intolerance, and that the 
puritanical dissenters from the church of England, " were 



pcrvertcrs ; of the truth," occasions me deep concern, 
mingled with astonishment and regret. That this host of 
worthies were persecuted in the most cruel and unrelent- 
ing manner, and many of them to death in its most horrid 
forms, as heretics and perverters of the truth, in the esti- 
mation of their persecutors, is readily admitted. But in 
what did their heresy consist, but in " hearkening unto 
God rather than unto men ;" and in prizing and holding 
fast the scriptural " form of sound words," rather than a 
form of human device ! And how did they pervert the 
truth, but by embracing and earnestly contending for it ? 
Although their own faith and practice were not unexcep- 
tionable, yet I have ever considered them much less so, 
than the faith and practice of their persecutors, " who 
refused to own and treat them as the defenders of truth." 
Nor do I think that the " cry which they raised against" 
these their persecutors, deserving of censure or disappro- 
bation. 

Mr. T. I am sensible, does not in a direct manner, and 
by name, charge these persecuted and martyred christians 
with perverting the truth. But the charge fairly, if not 
necessarily admits of, and requires this construction. For 
by whom has the cry of persecution been raised for gi 
thousand years past, but by christians of the above 
description ! 

" Just so theArians, (continues Mr. T.) of past ages, 
who made high pretensions to candor and chanty, com- 
plained of the orthodox, because they would not receive 
them to their communion. But how did these same can- 
did and charitable Arians conduct, when they were in 
power? They raised the sword of persecution, as the 
pagans had done before them, and shed torrents of chris- 
tian blood. Nor did they hesitate to devote to imprison- 
ment, to banishment and to death, even those eminent 
ambassadors of Christ, whose locks had grown white in 
his service. Thus fell this host of martyrs, merely because 
they would not deny the divinity of their Saviour, and of 
their Sanctifier. See Milner's church history. It is pleas- 
ing to learn from the same source, that the Trinitarians, 
when they gained the ascendancy, as they repeatedly did 
at the close of such scenes, were never known to persecute 
their persecutors, or to do any thing more than to exclude 
them from their communion." — Had not the general 
character of Mr. T'fe. letter fortified my mind against the 
impression of surprise, the above quotation would have 
giyen me as powerful, as an unexpected shock. But 
prepared as I was to meet with misstatements, misrepre- 
sentations and unsupported assertions, yet it did not fail 



77 

to produce some shock of surprise, with the mingled 
emotions of regret and indignant grief. 

Seldom, if ever, have I seen a statement or represen- 
tation which will parallel with the above quotation in regard 
to incorrectness and illiberality. However correct it may 
be in some of its parts, yet when viewed in its general 
character and apparent design, it is to be rejected as highly 
exceptionable and unjust. Nor will this for a moment 
be doubted by any one whose acquaintance with ecclesi- 
astical history is not very imperfect and circumscribed. 

That " Arians, when they were in power," were charg- 
able with the crime of persecution — that " they tortured 
and put to death" many " of the Trinitarians," is a truth, 
however sad and melancholy, which can neither be de- 
nied nor concealed. Nor does their cruel and barbarous" 
conduct, whatever might have been their provocations, 
admit of excuse. So far from volunteering myself as a 
vindicator or apologist for their execrable crimes, that I 
give my voice against them as disgraceful both to the 
christian religion, and to the christian name. But that 
these same Arians, at the times to which Mr. T. refers, 
discovered a worse spirit, or carried the cruel, bloody and 
infernal work of persecution, to a greater length than did 
the Trinitarian party, I am not prepared to admit. 

Milner, so far from saying, as Mr. T. asserts, that 
" the Trinitarians were never known to persecute their 
persecutors, or to do any thing more than to exclude 
them from their communion," says, that they did do 
more than this. He expressly says, " that the orthodox 
and heretical," or Trinitarians and Anti-trinitarians, " did 
each their utmost to support their several pretensions." 
He further says, that u the former," the Trinitarians, 
from the want, or at least from the very low state of ex- 
perimental religion, were deprived of the very best method 
of supporting the truth, by shewing its necessary connex- 
ion with the foundation of true piety and virtue." He 
adds, that the emperor " Constantine," whose " regard 
for Christianity in general, was doubtless sincere," wrote 
both to Alexander and Arius, the leaders of the two par- 
ties, " and blamed them both," — that " Arius was de- 
posed and forbidden to enter into Alexandria," and that 
both " he and his associates were banished into Illiricum." 
Not only were Trinitarians in these tumultuary times, 
and during these violent struggles, chargeable with cruel 
persecution, but afterwards, " when they gained the as- 
cendancy," they revived and pushed this barbarous and 
bloody business to an almost incredible extent. The 
" middle ages of the church," according to Milner, as well 



78 

as other ecclesiastical historians, exhibit scenes of horror, 
at which humanity must revolt ; and scenes too which 
are almost, it not entirely, to be ascribed to Trinitarians^ 
as the merciless authors. 

" The Waldenses are the middle link, which connects 
the primitive christians, and the fathers of the reformed. 5> 
These Waldenses, by whatever name they may be called, 
during the period of several successive centuries, were the 
unhappy and miserable victims of Trinitarian persecution. 

For the information of my readers, who may not be 
acquainted with their history, the following sketches of it 
are submitted as correct : — "Jfaldenses, or Valdenses, are 
a sect of reformers, who made their first noticeable ap- 
pearance about the year 1160. They were most numer- 
ous about the vallies of Piedmont. They were formed 
into religious assemblies, first in France, and afterwards 
in Lombardy. Whence their sect was propagated 
throughout the other provinces of Europe, with incredible 
rapidity, and with such invincible fortitude, that neither 
fire nor sword, nor the most cruel inventions of merciless 
persecution, could damp dieir zeal, or entirely ruin their 
cause.'' 

Their christian and moral character was exemplary in a 
distinguished and eminent degree. Their faith was simple 
and evangelical. They professed to " believe in, to wor- 
ship one God, through the one Mediator, and by the in- 
fluence of the Holy Spirit .•" — that " Christ is our life and 
truth, and peace, and righteousness ; our Shepherd and 
Advocate, our Sacrifice and Priest, who died for the salva- 
tion of all who should believe, and also rose again for our 
justification," and that " the Holy Ghost is our comfort- 
,er, proceeding from the Father, and from the Son ; by 
whose inspiration we pray, &x." 

Such, according to Milner, was their belief of the Fath- 
er, Son, and Holy Ghost. This writer also allows, that 
the Albigenses, who were essentially the same with the 
Waldenses, were called by Hoveden, an English histori- 
an, Arians — or rather, " he calls their doctrine the Arian 
heresy." " But Arian, or Manichee, (observes Milner,) 
or any other term of reproach, sufficiently answers the 
design, of determined persecutors." And Benedict, the 
Baptist historian, does not hesitate to say of them, " Some 
were Arians, Unitarians, &c." 

The truth seems to be, that no uniform system of doc- 
trines was common to them all ; but that diversity in 
both religious opinions and modes of worship existed 
arthong them. 



79 

They were, however, of one heart and one mind in 
opposing papal tyranny, subscription to the orthodox, 
established, infallible catholic creed, and the pride, usurpa- 
tion and intolerance of the dominant clergy. x\nd that 
they were generally opposers of the doctrine of a triune 
God, there is much reason to believe. But be this as it 
may, their religious and moral character, generally, was 
pre-eminently fair and estimable. Their principal crime 
was heresy, or in other words, their hearkening unto God 
rather than unto men in matters of conscience and religion. 
But this was abundantly sufficient to rouse against them 
the resentment and implacable enmity of the Trinitarian 
and orthodox church. As they were " perverters of the 
truth ;" this same Trinitarian church, notwithstanding 
they did " nothing more than to exclude them from their 
communion," if we are to believe Mr. Thomas, did 
much more, if we may believe Milner, and other writers 
who had authority for what they wrote. The Trinitarian 
church, having " the ascendency," persecuted these dis- 
senters in a most cruel and unrelenting manner. This is 
abundantly evident from the statements of Milner, al- 
though Mr. T. would make you, if I understand him, 
believe the contrary. His positive assertion relative to 
this subject, supported by no authority, I must consider 
as unjustifiable as it is erroneous and. unfounded. And 
that you will be constrained to view it in the same light, 
admits not of a doubt, if you have so much desire to know 
the truth as to read the two last chapters in the third vol- 
ume of Milner's church history. But as the following 
quotations from that writer may be sufficient to satisfy your 
minds, permit me to request you to read them with awak- 
ened and very serious attention. 

This writer makes it satisfactorily evident with respect 
tq these dissenters from the established Trinitarian church, 
that while " in morals and life they were good ; true in 
words, unanimous in brotherly love ; blameless and with- 
out reproach among men, and that they obeyed the divine 
commands with all their might," thousands of them were 
seen patiently to bear persecution for the sake of Christ." 
" Great numbers of them suffered continually for their 
principles." " They were the peculiar objects of papal 
vengeance ;" and " were exposed to a persecution as 
cruel and atrocious as any recorded in history ;" that 
u thousands of them were hanged and burned ;" that 
" three hundred thousand" of their persecutors " filled 
their country with carnage and confusion for a number of 
years," producing " almost inconceivable scenes of base- 
ness, perfidy, barbarity, indecency and hypocrisy ;" that 



80 

many of these persecuted christians were " delivered to 
the secular power to be burned;" that great numbers of 
them " during the severity of winter," were obliged to flee 
41 to one of the highest mountains of the Alps, the mothers 
carrying cradles, and leading by the hand those little 
children, who were unable to walk ;" that " many of 
them were murdered, and others starved to death ; that a 
hundred and eighty children were found dead in their 
cradles, and the greatest part of their mothers died soon 
after them." — -" The civil power permitted the papal to 
indulge its thirst for blood. Dreadful cruelties were in- 
flicted on the people of God," and " the fires continued 
to be kindled." Many of them were " obliged to leave 
their settlements, and were reduced to the extremity pi 
attempting, in the midst of winter, to pass over a high 
mountain ;" in which attempt, " the greatest part of them 
perished." u In the valley of Layse^ four hundred little 
children were found suffocated in their cradles, or in the 
arms of their deceased mothers, in consequence of a great 
quantity of wood being placed at the entrance of the caves, 
(to which they had fled) and set on fire." " The murders, 
rapes and desolations," committed on these people " were 
horrible beyond all description." 

Thus this infernal persecuting business was carried on 
by Trinitarians against the pure church of Christ, from 
the twelfth, to the end of the sixteenth century, with sav- 
age and unrelenting cruelty. " No part of Europe, 
(continues Milner,) was exempt from the sufferings of 
these christian heroes." 

Among the idle and extravagant pretexts which their 
persecutors employed as motives for their conduct, or in 
vindication of it, this was one, that the " children" of 
these heretics, " were born with black throats ; tJuit thru 
rv ere hairy, and had four rows of teeth /" 

" Thus fell this host of martyrs by the hand of those 
who (probably) would have assented to every thing which 
Mr. T. requires, as a term of christian fellowship.'" But 
however this may be, yet that gentleman seems anxious 
to have you believe " that Trinitarians, when they gained 
the ascendancy, were never known to do any thing more, 
than to exclude" dissenters "from their communion;" and 
that " perverters of the truth have always raised the cry 
of persecution against those, who have refused to own and 
treat them as its defenders!" 

Should Mr. T. in vindication of himself, say, that in 
speaking of persecution, he referred to the fourth century. 
it will be of little, or no avail to his purpose, unless he can 
make it appear that the cry of persecution has not been 



81 

<c raised" since that period ; and that Trinitarians, at that 
time, were nor chargeable with the crime of persecuting 
their persecutors. But he produced no proof, nor is it in 
his power to do it, to substantiate either of those hypothe- 
ses. In saying this, I am justified by the authority of 
Moshbim, of Benedict, and others, as well as that of Mil tier. 

M asheim, who was not less hostile to Arianism than 
Miiuer, has the candour to acknowledge that " Theodosius 
the Great, who raised the secular arm in the fourth century 
against the Arians, with a terrible decree of violence, drove 
them from their churches, enacted laws, whose severity 
exposed them to the greatest calamities, and rendered, 
throughout his dominions, the decrees of the council of 
Nice triumphant over all opposition.'" The Dr. adds — 
" During the long and violent contest between the_ N re- 
mans (Trinitarians) and Arians, the attentive and impar- 
tial will acknowledge, that unjustifiable measures were 
taken, and great excesses committed on both sides. So 
that when, abstracting from the merits of the cause, we 
only consider with what temper, and by what means the 
parties defended their respective opinions, it will be difficult 
to determine which of the two exceeded most the bounds 
of probity, charity, and moderation." 

When it is considered that both of the above writers 
were decided Trinitarians, it may well be believed that 
they have not exaggerated the cruel and barbarous treat- 
ment which the Arians received from their Trinitarian 
opponents. May it not also be reasonably supposed that 
they have not been so favourable towards the Arians as 
strict impartiality would have dictated ? This can hardly 
be doubted, and especially when it is considered that Dr. 
Maclaine, the translator of Mosheim, does not hesitate to 
say that the Arian party have never been treated with jus- 
tice and impartiality. His words are, "The Arian histo- 
ry stands yet in need of a pen guided by integrity and can- 
dour, and unbiassed by affection or hatred." 

It is not, however, a little to their -wn reputation, and 
in favour of the cause of truth, that some Trinitarian writers 
have possessed so much integrity and candor, as to ac- 
knowledge that their own party in th disgraceful and 
horrid business of persecution, have be/^i as blameable as 
their opponents. 

m But were Mr. T's. statement with respect to persecu- 
tion in the fourth century, to be admitted as true, yet it 
could have no favourable aspect on Trinitarians of suc- 
ceeding ages and more modern times. It would indeed 
exhibit these in contrast with those in a most unfavourable 
light. 



E2 

If Arians in the early age of the church, " tortured 
and put to death, > thousands and thousands of the 
Trinitarians ;" Trinitarians, in " the latter times, " 
have tortured and put to death tens of thousands 
and ten of thousands both Trinitarians and Anti- 
Trinitarians. To whom but to Trinitarians, are to 
be ascribed all the cruel persecutions inflicted, and 
the " torrents of blood" spilt by the church of Rome? 
To what, as the principal source, are to be traced, but to 
the Trinitarian church of England, the violent persecutions 
which have taken place in that Island? Who, but 
John Calvin, one of the leaders of protestant Trinitarians, 
brought Servetus to the stake, and exulted in his lingering 
and torturous death, because he was a heretick R* And 
who but Trinitarians have exercised in New- England, a 
persecuting spirit against their dissenting brethren to the 
despoiling them of their reputation and goods ; and of their 
habitations and liberty — and even to their imprisonment, 
banishment and death ! And who but Trinitarians arc 
now, not only as individuals, but in associated bodies, 
zealously engaged in representing their brethren, who do 

* ff A multitude of testimonies," says Benedict, " go to prove 
that Calvin was at the head of this barbarous affair. But omitt- 
ing all others, I will transcribe a part of a letter written by him in 
1564, to the Marquis Paet, high chamberlain to the king of Na- 
varre. '« Honour, glory, and riches," said he to the Marquis, 
" shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail 
to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to 
revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I 
have exterminated Michael Servetus, the Spaniard." 

Servetus' notion of the Trinity according to Mosheim, was as 
follows : " The Deity, before the creation of the world, had 
produced within himself, two personal representations, or man- 
ners of existence, which were to be the medium of intercom se 
between himself and mortals, and by whom, consequently, he- 
was to reveal his will, and to display his mercy and beneticence to 
the children of men ; that these two representatives were the 
Word and the Holy Ghost ; thai the former was united to the 
man Christ, who was born of the Virgin Mary by an omnipotent 
act of the divine will ; and that on this account, Christ might 
properly be called God ; that the Holy Spirit directed the course, 
anet animated the Whole system of nature; and more especially 
produced in the minds of men wise counsels, virtuous propensi- 
ties, and divine 1'relings ; and finally, that these two representa- 
tions were to cease after the destruction of this terrestrial globe, 
and to be absorbed into the substance of the Deity, from whence 
they had been formed." 

Such wan the heresy of the "monster Michael Servetus, the 
Spaniard, " whom John Calvin, a Trinitarian, exterminated, 
and then gloried in the glorious deed ! 



83 

not believe in the " strange doctrine of a triune God/' 
as " symbolizers with pagans and infidels" — as Belshan:- 
ites — is holding doctrines which are " subversive of the 
gospel" — as "professedly rejecting ; and hating ail the 
doctrines which are essential to Christianity," and ^as 
" bound to inevitable destruction and perdition !" Who 
but Trinitarians by this, and by other expedients, are 
making vigorous exertion to render their dissenting breth- 
ren odious and abhorrent in the view of the public — to 
destroy their reputation and influence — to drive from 
them their affectionate parishioners — to depose them from 
office, and to " make them an astonishment, and an hiss- 
ing, and perpetual desolations ?" 

All these things do not apply, I am persuaded, to 
Trinitarians, without exception. Nor can they be said 
of any of them, I would hope, in a full and unqualified 
sense. But enough has not been said I fear, suitably to 
awaken and arouse the slumbering attention of multitudes 
to search and see whether these things are indeed so, and 
to "judge even of their own selves what is right." 

Indiscriminately to charge any sect or denomination of 
christians with the indiscretions, rashness, blind zeal 
and the persecuting conduct of their leaders and cham- 
pions, would be illiberal and unjust. It is but right to 
admit that many Trinitarian christians, and even in times 
of high excitement and religious hostility, have distin- 
guished themselves by their moderation and candour ; and 
by the mild and pacific spirit of their great and benevolent 
Master. And that many characters of this description 
are now to be found among Trinitarian ministers and 
private christians, is not to be questioned. Nor can I 
doubt that they witness with grief, disapprobation, and 
disgust, the precipitate, uncharitable and overbearing 
measures pursued by too many of their brethren. And 
it is devoutly to be hoped that they will be happily 
instrumental in checking their violence and restraining: 
their excesses. 
1 But notwithstanding the policy and practice of persecu- 
tion are principally to be attributed to Trinitarian 
christians, yet I am far from believing that their dissenting 
brethren are not^ men of like passions with themselves. 
Diversity in religious opinion affords no conclusive evi- 
dence m of real and essential diversity of moral character. 
Mankind, in a moral view, it must be acknowledged, are 
all the^ descendants of apostate Adam. Nor, should 
Anti-trinitarians become the predominant party, as they 
probably will, before many years shall have elapsed, who 
can say that they will not give the same measure to their 



84 

Trinitarian brethren, which they now mete to them ? 
Although I most sincerely hope that this will not be the 
case, yet I would by no means decide that it will not. 

It is far from being certain that " liberal christians," 
possess more gospel liberality of sentiment and disposition 
than their " orthodox and illiberal'''' brethren. Among 
both parties excellent characters are to be found. But 
neither party is exempt from errors, either of opinion or 
practice. When liberal men are disposed " violent! 3' to 
quarrel for liberality," and to load with reproach and cal- 
umny their orthodox brethren, they "know not what 
manner of spirit they are of." This spirit is as foreign 
from the spirit of Christ, as the spirit of rigid, severe, and 
overbearing orthodoxy. To discountenance and suppress 
both, must be the object of considerate, truly catholic 
and good men of both parties. May their efforts be 
crowned with the most desirable success. 

THE POSTSCRIPT 

Of Mr. T's. letter shall be duly noticed. In it he ob- 
serves, " I have been informed that a report, in substance 
as follows, is circulated and believed in and about the 
place of Mr. Norton's residence, viz. that the members of 
the Association, to which he read his letter in manuscript, 
gave their consent that it should be published. And it is 
understood that on this ground, he and others are attempt- 
ing to vindicate his conduct in doing as he has done rela- 
tive to this matter." He adds, " there is not the least 
foundation for the above report." — In repty, I have only 
to say, that until I read Mr. T's. postscript, I had heard 
nothing of this same report — that I have since heard of no 
such report, and that it is a report, so far as I know, 
which has neither " circulated,'' nor been made, " in or 
about the place of Mr. N's. residence." — Whether this 
declaration will satisfy Mr. T. in relation to the subject, I 
know not. But of this he maybe assured, that neither 
" Mr. N." nor " others," are desirous to " vindicate his 
conduct," by the expedient to which Mr. T. refers, nor 
by any other expedient, as they are well satisfied that his 
conduct, " relative to this matter," requires no other 
vindication than its own integrity and correctness. 

CONCLUSION. 

In the preceding review of the Rev. Mr. Thomas' 
letter, I beg leave to observe that I have performed a very 
unpleasant and painful task. In the performance of it, 



85 

however, I have realized that satisfaction, which results 
from a consciousness that I have endeavoured faithfully 
to discharge a duty, which I conceived I owed to God 
and the Saviour, to Mr. T. to the public, to the people of 
my charge, and to myself. — In stating facts, it has been 
my object to " set down nought in malice" — to exhibit 
" unvarnished truth" — to avoid all irritating expressions, 
and to inflict no wound but should be " a kindness," and 
to give no reproof that might not be " an excellent oil." 
If I have not steadily kept this object in view, I ask for- 
giveness both of God and man for the wrong. 

In the controversial parts of the review, I have endeav- 
oured to ascertain and illustrate u the truth as it is in," 
and with respect to " Jesus." How far I have been 
successful in this attempt, my readers must judge fur 
themselves. While they test the sentiments which I have 
advanced by the word of God in the exercise of their own 
understandings, it is my sincere hope that they will not 
embrace them any further than they will abide the scruti- 
ny of that infallible criterion. To lead them, or any of my 
fellow men and fellow christians into error, respecting the 
character of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or any 
other religious subject, is very far from being my aim. 
Voluntarily to do this, no consideration would induce 
me. As the developement of truth has been my object, so 
it is my hope that nothing but truth will be embraced by 
any of my readers. 

If I have suggested any thing which may appear dis- 
respectful of " orthodoxy," it is my wish that it may 
not be so understood. For the orthodox theory, and ac- 
cording to the common acceptation of the term, I have 
a sincere respect. It has generally, the approbation of my 
understanding, and I hope of my heart. But while I 
cannot assent to all its articles, it is my wish that its gener- 
al character might be supported, and so supported, as to 
conciliate the good opinion of its supposed or real oppo- 
sers, and not to brace them against, and drive them to a 
greater distance from it. " Orthodox," and " heterodox" 
christians do not, I am persuaded, generally understand 
each others 5 theories as they ought, nor treat each other in 
that courteous, candid, ingenuous and christian manner, 
as is devoutly to be wished. Were they but suitably 
disposed to make themselves better acquainted with each 
others' sentiments, and to conduct towards each other 
with all that " meekness and wisdom," which the gospel 
recommends and inculcates, we should not hear it said of 
either party, that they are u blasphemers," or that they 



86 

" professedly deny every essential doctrine of the gospel.'' 
" These things ought not so to be." 

It is deeply to be deplored that such accusations should 
be mutually made of each other, and especially by chris- 
tian ministers. By these things they injure themselves, 
give occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully, 
blast the growth of christian charity, set at irreconcileable 
variance, those who should " dwell together in unity," 
and greatly hurt their common cause. — How long are 
christians to forget that " love thinketh no evil," and 
" worketh no ill to his neighbour?" 

If I have suggested any thing which may have the 
appearance of soliciting my brethren who have denied me 
ministerial fellowship, to restore me to that fellowship by 
exchanges of professional labours, it is my wish that they 
would not give it this construction. Their rejection of 
me as a christian brother, has indeed occasioned me deep 
solicitude and grief; and particularly their manner of 
doing it. This I consider as altogether unjustifiable. 
Nor do I see how they can justify it to their own con- 
sciences. But notwithstanding I deeply regret it, that 
this great breach is made between us, and most sincerely 
wish it might, in a reasonable and christian manner, be 
healed ; yet I can do " nothing less nor more," than 
to assure them, generally, with a spirit of love and friend- 
ship, of my readiness to renew and hold with them minis- 
terial intercourse, as in times past. After the overtures 
which I have already made them to this purpose, they 
cannot reasonably expect that I should make any further 
advance. If in any thing I have wronged them, or treated 
them disrespectfully ; or if, by any immorality or indis- 
cretion, I have offended them, most willingly will I 
acknowledge my fault, and ask their forgiveness. But I 
am conscious of nothing by which I could thus have 
offended them, or any of them. Nor am I apprehensive that 
they lay any such fault to my charge. Every thing which 
Christianity requires, I am ready to do, to conciliate their 
friendship, and to restore ministerial intercourse and har- 
mony between us- But to solicit, or even to accede to 
such intercourse and harmony as a favour on their p t irt, is 
far from my design. Nor do I wish from them any such 
solicitation of me. If, as christian ministers, placed on 
the footing of equality, we can harmoniously walk to- 
gether, I shall sincerely rejoice. But if a separation be- 
tween us must continue, I shall consider myself, in no 
degree, as responsible for it, or the evils which may thence 
result. 



87 

Should the exertions which have been made to ex- 
hibit my sentiments in relation to the doctrine of the 
Trinity as subversive of the gospel, and as leading to inev- 
itable destruction and perdition, have been productive of 
their designed effect, with respect to any of my readers, I 
most earnestly entreat them, on their own account, very 
seriously to inquire whether their minds have not been 
unduly influenced. If, christian brethren, your minds 
have* by misrepresentations, however undesigned, been 
" corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ, and 
soured with the leaven of rash and interdicted judging, it 
is highly important, for your own good, for the cause of 
truth and christian charity, that you should be convinced 
of it. That you may be able to decide satisfactorily upon 
this subject, permit me to ask, whether, in your estima- 
tion, the following sentiments < are subversive of the gos- 
pel, and if believed, destructive of the soul — ''There is 
one God, even the Father, who is self-existent, in- 
dependent, and possessed of infinite and all possible per- 
fections, both natural and moral. There is one Lord 
Jesus Christ, who, in every respect, (excepting his body) 
is unspeakably superior in dignity and glory to any human 
or angelic being ; and who is, in the most endearing and 
intimate manner, united to the one God his Father ; inso- 
much that they are One — one in heart, in design and pur- 
suit — one, so far as two distinct ^ persons can be one. 
There is also one Holy Ghost or Spirit, even the Spirit of 
the one God, and essentially the same as the one God 
himself." Do you believe, christian brethren, that these 
articles of faith are anti- christian— that they constitute 
" a scheme, which is subversive of the gospel of 
Christ" — a scheme which " overthrows the work of re- 
demption," and that if embraced, " inevitable destruction 
and perdition awaits a sinful and ruined world !" — Do you, 
can you believe this ? May I not be persuaded better 
things of you ? I hope, and indeed trust that I may. — But 
the above articles of faith are those which I have exhibited 
as articles of my belief, because, as it appears to me, they 
are clearly exhibited in the Bible. And for believing 
these articles, I am represented by some of my brethren 
in the ministry, as destroying the christian faith — as sym- 
bolizing with pagans and infidels — as unworthy of the 
name of a minister of Christ, and as a heretick to be 
rejected either with, or without admonition, by all ortho- 
dox christians. But while these things occasion me little 
or no personal solicitude, and while I desire to bless God 
for the benefit which I trust I have derived from them, yet 
I cannot feel indifferent to them as to the effects which 



they have produced, or may produce on your minds a?ul 
conduct. That they have been and now are of a baleful 
nature, cann6t reasonably be questioned ; and that they 
will become more extensively and fearfully pernicious to 
the order, peace and harmony of christian churches, and 
to the very spirit of Christianity itself, there is much reason 
to apprehend. " The signs of the times," are indeed por- 
tentous. Convulsions and "days of vengeance," seem 
to avait our " American Israel," and the hearts of many 
who wish well to Zion, seem to be " failing them for 
fe.»r, and for looking after those things," which threaten 
her prosperity and dearest interests. May God in mercy 
avert the threatened evils in " thinking upon us for 
good" — in checking the progress of religious usurpation— 
in counteracting every human device, which opposeth and 
exalteth itself against the knowledge of God — in attaching 
the minds and hearts of christians more strongly to the 
form of sound words — to the pure words, and the whole- 
some words, which were given by his own inspiration, and 
in pouring put upon us all that Spirit of uncorrupted 
religion, which is " first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and 
easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, with- 
out partiality, and without hypocrisy." 

But you are not to expect, Christian brethren, these 
great, and good, and desirable events, but in the use of 
proper means. You are to watch, and to pray, and to 
act. You cannot too carefully watch your minds, that they 
be not perverted from the knowledge of the truth ; your 
hearts, that no root of bitterness and hatred of your breth- 
ren spring up, to destroy charitable and religious affec- 
tions ; and your conduct, that it " give none offence, neith- 
er to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of 
God." Nor can you be too watchful of your ministers 
with respect both to their sentiments and deportment, that 
they may not " teach you for doctrines the command- 
ments of men" — and " spoil you through philosophy and 
vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments 
of the world, and not after Christ :" — that they may not 
despoil you of that liberty wherewith Christ hath made 
you free, and by imposing upon your necks a galling, 
dishonourable and slavish yoke. Against these evils you 
cannot guard with too much vigilance. Nor ought you to 
treat admonition on this subject, as unseasonable and with 
neglect. Of this, if not already, you may soon and sor- 
rowfully be convinced. Bemember that you are warned. 

To watchfulness, you must add prayer, importunate 
and perse vering prayer, as you would hope that evil things 
and evil days will cease ; and that better things and better 



89 

days will succeed. Pray therefore with all prayer ; pray 
without ceasing ; pray and faint not. Pray for yourselves, 
that you may better understand, more highly prize, and 
more* copiously imbibe the spirit of the gospel ; and that 
you may more abound in its fair, and lovely, and benefi- 
cent fruits — Pray for your ministers, that they may more 
nearly imitate in humility, meekness and divine charity, 
their great and glorious Exemplar — that they lric.y not 
claim to " have dominion over your faith, but be helpers 
of your joy," "in word, in conversation, in charity, in 
spirit, in faith, in purity; and that in all things they may 
conduct as becometh the gospel of Christ." Pray that a 
door may be opened for a free and impartial examination 
of the holy scriptures, and that none need be afraid thus 
to examine for themselves, nor to communicate the result 
of their examination: and that all spiritual pride, and ar- 
rogance, and usurpation, and tyranny may come to an end. 

Let exertion also accompany your priyers. In a 
proper manner do whatever may be in your power to 
suppress the evil practices among too many professing 
christians, as well as others, of " lying against the truth," 
and "one another ;" of slander, and evil speaking, of 
intemperance and all its attendant vices. $ Do whatever 
you can to suppress an uncharitable, censorious, bitter, and 
dividing spirit, as well with respect to politicks as relig- 
ion. Exert yourselves to render the savage and horrid 
44 custom of war," odious and abhorrent, and all unhallow- 
ed religious warfare, base and contemptible. Arouse 
yourselves to assert and maintain your rights as christians, 
and to break every yoke of oppressive bondage. Do 
these things, christian brethren, and reasonably may you 
expect, that through the kind and merciful interposition of 
divine Providence, many of the evils which you see and 
feel will soon be removed, and " happier times and 
scenes arise." 

In this connexion I beg leave to invite your attention, 
briefly to the subject of religious creeds, or confessions of 
faith, of human fabrication, with the view that you may 
better understand it, and act accordingly. 

In doing this, I pray you to be assured, that I am in- 
fluenced neither by hope nor fear of a personal nature,as the 
church of which I have the honour and satisfaction to be 
the pastor, are not entangled, nor have been entangled by 
any human creed for the space of twenty years ; nor do 
they wish, I presume, to be so entangled by any authority 
I might be disposed to arrogate and exercise, or any other 
man, or body of men. They are disposed to acknowledge 
no man as master on earth, " knowing that their Master 

M 



90 

is in heaven." By his laws and by his religion, as they- 
find them in the Bible, they profess to be fully satisfied. 
By these laws and by this religion they have endeavoured, 
I hope, to regulate their faith and practice. And by 
them, without the aid of any human device, they have 
more fully maintained, I presume, christian disci- 
pline, than any church in the vicinity. They have with a 
good degree of care purged out the old leaven, by ejecting 
from their body disorderly walkers, while some neighbour- 
ing churches, with which you are, perhaps, well acquaint- 
ed, have wholly neglected for a long series of years, the 
disciplinary laws of Christ's kingdom, and have retained 
in their communion notorious drunkards, and scandalous 
characters. But these members are orthodox. And hu- 
man creeds are " indispensably necessary as religious 
tests," and to "justify" these same churches, " in con- 
sidering and treating" these same members " as christians'." 

Christian brethren, seriously consider these things — 
examine the subject of human creeds with minds open to 
conviction, and with awakened, solemn and interested 
attention. You do not, I strongly suspect, view the sub- 
ject in a just and clear point of light. Fully persuaded, as I 
am, that the Bible contains the best and most perfect rule 
of faith and practice, there can, I conceive, be no need of 
any other, either as to words or form. With this rule you 
are to make yourselves well acquainted. You are to 
understand it for yourselves individually , and then to test 
by it the qualifications of others, for admission to your 
christian fellowship. Those whom you consider, in the 
view of this rule, as admissible to your fellowship, you 
will admit — others you will reject. \Vith this rule, and 
this rule only, as the standard of your faith and practice, 
you are to act conscientiously, and in the fear and love of 
God. Thus to think and act for yourselves, you have a 
just and claimable right. For this your christian liberty I 
plead. I protest only against those who would take it 
from you, or allow you only the semblance of itsenjoy- 
ment. But while I wish you to assert and exercise this 
liberty, I must be permitted to remind you, to do nothing 
" by partiality," but allow to others the same liberty 
which you have a right to claim and exercise yourselves. 

But do you not perceive that you are deprived of this 
liberty when you are required, by your spiritual guides, to 
assent to creeds of their own forming ; and not only this, 
but to make these same creeds the passport to your chris- 
tian fellowship ? It is to little purpose, to say that these 
creeds were formed by the private members of churches, 
as they have had a voice and have taken an active part in 



91 

their formation. Ministers, and not the brotherhood, are 
the principal agents in the business. But were it other- 
wise, yet all who afterwards become members of churches, 
must give their assent to these creeds, without having had 
any " part or lot in the matter." Thus people, generally, 
must assent to creeds, made ready for the m by human 
device, or be deprived of a great and precious religious 
privilege ! and creeds too, which may be, and in some 
respects really are, repugnant both to reason and reve- 
lation. But notwithstanding this, it is certain that a hu- 
man creed, if we are to believe Dr. Emmons, is necessary ; 
for it is " the only proper test of orthodoxy ;" while " the 
Bible is no proper test of men's religious opinions !" Will 
you, christian brethren, calmly and unmoved, suffer the 
Word of God to be treated with this apparent indignity 
and shameless contempt ? Will you countenance, justify, 
support, and practically defend this treatment ? What 
then is man in his best estate ! " Wo worth the day l n 

But you will be told that you need not fear to prefer a 
human creed to the Bible \ as a religious test, because a 
" gospel churcti cannot be formed upon a consistent and 
permanent foundation," without it ; — and because " this 
has been the general opinion of orthodox christians ever 
since the primitive days of Christianity,* who have carried 

* Whatever might have been Dr. Emmons 1 view, it is a very- 
singular fact that the orthodox creed in the days of primitive 
Christianity, was, as respects some of the most distinguished 
fathers, in direct opposition to the orthodox creed of the present 
day, at least in relation to Catholicism. The ancient creed 
acknowledged even atheists, whose moral character was good, 
to be christians ; but the modern creed, will not allow even the 
most exemplary christians to be any better than infidels. 

Justin Martyr,who, according to Mosheim, was " a man of emi- 
nent ji; j ty and considerable lea-nin^," expresslv savs, (Apol,2.p. 
83.) " Ket< 0} (Aijec hoyx fliurxvlzs ■ %pi$ixvoi utri, xxvxdeoi ivopioSwxv." 
Et quicunque, cum ratioue vixere, christiam sunt, quamvis 
athei, et nullius ntiminis cultores hahiti sunt. 

" 0< £s fAixa, Xoyx fiiurxvTis, xxt (Ziwms, Xfisxvel kxi xtpofioi xxt 
HTxpotfcot, vrxpftuo-t." 

Et quicunque cum ratione vixere, atque etiam nunc vivunt, 
christiani sunt, & extra metum & perturbationem, omne* sunt. 

The plain English of these passages is, And whoever have lived 
with reason are christians, although atheists, and are accounted 
as the worshippers of no God. And whoever have lived with 
reason, and noiv live after the same manner, are christians, and 
they are all without fear and perturbation. 

For these passages from Justin, who surlered martyrdom for 
his profession of, and adherence to the christian religion in the 
second century, I am indebted to a very Uarned and highly 



92 

their opinion into practice." — All this, to hush your 
alarm, to remove your tears, and to quiet your con- 
esteemed friend, who, with me, would probably object to the 
sentiments they contain as correct. In exhibiting them to public 
view, my design is to contrast in a strong light ancient and mod- 
uli Catholicism. While that embraces atheists as christians, this 
rejects christians as atheists, or at least as intidels,and as unworthy 
the christian name. 

If' Dv. Euimo.is is disposed to " symbolize" with Justin 
Martyr, and other orthodox primitive cnristians, I see not but he 
must adopt a creed somewhat different from that by which he 
and other orthodox christians test men's religious opinions. 

But should the Dr. reject that orthodox and " eminently 
pious" christian martyr, as an heretic, what will he say of more 
modern christians, whose orthodoxy cannot reasonably be ques- 
tioned ? Will he say and persist in saying, that these christians 
* 4 knew that the Biole is not a proper test of men's religious 
opinions" — i( that they saw the propriety and importance of a 
more definite criterion of orthodoxy," and that they " could not 
see how a gospel church could be formed upon a consistent and 
permanent foundation, unless they adopted some fo.m of sound 
words, and bound themselves to abide by it?" — Let Richard 
Baxter then, * £ a man of great piety," and whose praise is in all 
the orthodox churches of Christ, confront him. 

The following extracts from the writings of that truly great 
and good, and orthodox man, may convince the reader that 
unsupported assertions, although made by Dr. Emmons, are not 
entitled to implicit credence ; and that the Bible, independent 
of a human creed, is a proper test of men's religious opinions. 
" By the occasion of hereticks, quarrels and errors," says 
"Baxter, (i the serpent steps in, and will needs be a spirit of zeal 
in the church ; and he will so overdo against hereticks, that he 
persuades them they must enlarge their creed, and add this clause 
against one, and that against another, and all was but for the 
perfecting and preserving of the christian faith. And so he brings 
it to be a matter of so much wit to be a christian (as Erasmus 
complains) that ordinary heads were not able to reach it. He 
had got them with a religious cruelty to their own and others* 
souls, to lay all their salvation, and the peace of the church, upon 
some unsearchable mysteries about the Trinity, &c." — " Was 
not this reverend zeal ? And was not the devil seemingly now a 
christian of the most judicious and forward sort? But what 
got he at this one game ? 

I. He necessitated implicit faith even in fundamentals, when he 
had got uoints beyond a vulgar reach among fundamentals. 2. 
H" necessitated some living judge for the determining of funda- 
mentals (the soul of Popish darkness,) that is, what it is in 
■it ,e that the people must take for fundamentals. 3. He got a 
rlinsf verdict against the perfection and sufficiency of scrip- 
ture, (and consequently against Christ, his Spirit, his apostles, 



sciences, may be urged. Dr. Emmons does indeed urge 
it. But whom does he intend by orthodox christians ? 

and the christian faith,) that it will not afford us so much as a 
creed or system of fundamentals, or points absolutely necessary 
to salvation and brotherly communion, in tit or tolerable phrases ; 
but we must mend the language at least. 4. Me opened a gap 
for human additions, at which he might afterwards bring in more 
at his pleasure. 5. He framed an engine for an infallible divis- 
ion, and to tare in pieces the church, casting out all as hereticks, 
that could not subscribe to his additions, and necessitating 
separation by all dissenters, to the world's end, till the devii's 
engine be overthrown. 6. And hereby he lays a ground 
upon the divisions of christians, to bring men into doubt 
of all religion, as not knoviug which is the right. 7. He 
lays the giound of certain heart-burnings and mutual hat- 
red, contentions, revilings and enmity. Is not here enough 
got at one cast ? Doth there need any more to the establishing- 
of the Romish and hellish darkness ? Did not this one act 
found the seat of Rome ! Did not the devil get more in his cloak 
in one day, thau he could get by his sword in three hundred 
years ? — Yea, and where modesty restrains men from putting all 
such inventions and explications in their creed, the devil per- 
suaded men, that they bring the judgments of godly and reverend 
divines (no doubt to be reverenced, valued and heard) it is almost 
as much as if it were in the creed ; and therefore whoever dissent- 
eth, must be noted with a black coal, and you must disgrace 
him, and avoid communion with him, as an heretick. Had it not 
ben for this one plot, the christian faith had been kept pure * 
religion had been one, and the hearts of christians had been more 
one than they are. Had not the devil turned orthodox, he had 
nor made so many true christians hereticks, as Epiphanius and 
Austin have enrolled in the black list. Had not the enemy of 
truth and peace got into the chair, and made so pathetic an 
oration as to inflame the minds of the lovers of truth to be over 
zealous for it, and to do too much, we might have had truth and 
peace to this day. Yea, still, if he see any man of experience 
and moderation stand up to reduce men to the ancient simplicity, 
he presently seems the most zealous for Christ, and tells the un- 
experienced leaders of the flocks, that it is in favour of some 
heresy that such a man speaks ; he is plotting a carnal syncre- 
tism, and attempting the reconcilement of Christ and Belial ; he 
is tainted with popery, or Socinianism, or Arminianism, or Cal- 
vinism, or whatsover may make him odious with those he speaks 
to. O what the devil hath got by overdoing !" 

Although the phraseology of this extract from the venerable 
Baxter, must be exceptionable to the reader, yet as an apology 
for that great and excellent man, it is to be observed, that he 
wrote nearly a century and a half past, when harshness of expres- 
sion was in so general use, that the most fastidious taste was 
J^ardly offended by it, Drs. Doddridge and Watts, would not 



94 

Those very christians, to whose creeds he does not, nor 
would he, I presume, on any consideration, give his as- 
sent, without so qualifying and explaining them, as to 
make of them quite different things. Would he give an 
unqualified assent, either to the Nicene, or the Athanasian, 
or the Calvmistic creed ? It is confidently presumed that 
he would not. Nor, if tested by either of them, unless in 
a lax manner, could he now maintain his standing as a 
christian minister, or be allowed a seat at the Lord's table. 
The Calvinistic creed, which seems to have the highest 
claim to the term orthodox, hedoes not scruple to reject, 
as to some of its most distinguished and peculiar articles, 
as grossly erroneous and absurd, while he zealously advo- 
cates, as orthodox, some of the prominent articles of 
Arminian heresy. These are incontestible facts. Nor 
will the Dr. himself, I presume, either deny or attempt to 
elude the charge. Why then has he introduced " ortho- 
dox christians," as above stated, who would in general 
have rejected his creed, had they been acquainted with it, 
as grossly heretical, and even as blasphemous ! Besides, 
does not the Dr. well know, that even at the present time, 
professedly orthodox christians, ^ both in Europe and 
America, and christians too, eminently distinguished for 
their piety and information, reject with abhorrence some of 

have expressed themselves on the subject in the manner Baxter 
has done ; but I doubt not that they both fully approved the sen- 
timents which he has expressed. Dr. Doddridge, it is well known, 
was decidedly opposed to subscription to a human creed, as a 
test of "men's religious opinions," and to the ejection of mem- 
bers from christian churches, on account of their being Arians, 
and in other respects reputed hereticks. And Dr. Watts ex- 
pressly says, '* I cannot tind where our blessed Lord has given 
them (his ministers) any power, or pretence of power to impose 
on conscience any of their own inventions, of new doctrines, or 
duties ; or so much as their own peculiar explications of the 
words of Christ, by their own authority.'* " A christian church," 
he observes, " allows all its members the most perfect liberty of 
men and christians. It pretends to no power over conscience. 
It gives its ministers power and authority to command nothing 
but what is found in the JSible." 

Not only were these burning and shining lights in the christian 
church decidedly opposed to Dr. Emmons on the subject of 
human creeds, but thousands of their cotemporaries — of their 
predecessors, and of their successors, eminent for their orthodoxy 
and piety. And sooner, I am persuaded, would they have gone 
as martyrs to the stake, than subscribe the Dr's. orthodox creed, 
o" to the sentiments which he has expressed in relation to the 
Bible and human creeds in his papal sermen, " preached ftt the 
installation of the Rev. Holland Weeks." 



95 

the leading articles of bis orthodox creed ? — Why then, I 
again ask, has Dr. E. introduced to your notice, those 
orthodox christians, in the manner he has done ? Has it 
been with the view to identify his religious creed with 
theirs ? Or to make you believe, that the orthodox creed 
has been the same " ever since the days of primitive Chris- 
tianity ?" Or to insinuate that none but orthodox chris- 
tians,* in his sense of the terms, " have made use of formu- 
laries, creeds and confessions of faith ?" or that such 
orthodox christians have approved of and assented to each 
other's devices of this kind ? — I have too good an opinion 
of the Dr's. knowledge and integrity, to admit that either of 
these things was his object. What then could have been 
his object ? I am weary of conjectures ; nor shall I venture- 
to give a peremptory decision on the subject. 

But whatever may have been the Dr's. object, or how- 
ever he and other spiritual guides can satisfy their con- 
sciences in imposing upon you a creed of their own fabri- 
cation, as the only proper test of orthodoxy and commu- 
nion, it certainly becomes you very seriously to examine 
into your own conduct, in assenting to a creed of diis de- 
scription, and in requiring others to assent to it, as indis- 
pensable to their admission to a great and precious^ chris- 
tian privilege. Do you not by this your conduct, implic- 
itly acknowledge that a form of human words is a better 
religious test than the words of the living God ? and that 
his words are no proper test of men's religious sentiments ! 
that while God's words are fallible, those of men are in- 
fallible ! — and that you are " not ashamed to profess 
them," as such " before the world, nor afraid to bind 
yourselves to believe them as long as you shall live, and 
as long as you shall exist !" Do you not also implicitly 
acknowledge that Dr.E. and other pastors of churches who 
concur with him in sentiment, " exalt themselves above 
all that is called God," and that they have an unquestiona- 
ble right to do this ! These questions, christian brethren, 
strongly as they are stated, I consider as pertinent, as 
they are serious and important. And most earnestly do 
I beseech you to consider them with the most awakened, 
impartial and interested attention. And as you would not 
have the " key of knowledge taken from you," and be 
yourselves reduced to a state of degrading religious vassal- 
lage, rouse from your apathy, and " play the man." 

Should you say that in assenting to a human creed as " an 
indispensable, and only proper test of orthodoxy," the 
thought never entered your minds that you implicitly ac- 
knowledged all these shocking things, I am willing to 
admit the fact. I cannot believe that with design^ 3-011 do 



96 

acknowledge them. But whether designed or not, j r ou 
really do, as I conceive, make the acknowledgment ; by 
just and fair implication. Nor do I see how you can elude 
the charge. The subject has certainly a strong and 
imperious claim to your very solemn consideration. And 
most sincerely do I hope that this claim will not be dis- 
regarded. 

Should you say that you do not assent to human 
creeds as infallibly true — or as wholly true as they are 
understood by your ministers, or by others, or even by 
yourselves ; but that you assent to them as partly true, 
and partly false, of what " immense benefit," I would 
then ask, can be the assent you give to them ? Besides, in 
what light must your conduct appear in the view of God, 
and of all honest and ingenuous men ? Must it not be 
deemed as an act of unjustifiable trifling with a most 
sacred and solemn subject ? Can you consistently with 
the open, frank, and noble character of Christianity, be 
guilty of such duplicity and disguise ? 

Furthermore, is it not a fact that some of you, to say 
the least, reject, both with your understandings, and your 
hearts, that article of the creed imposed upon you, which 
requires # your assent to the doctrine of a triune God, or a 
God existing in three equal persons ? This, I well know, 
to be the fact. With pungent grief, mingled with aston- 
ishment, I contemplate the subject. Can you be insensi- 
ble, that you professedly assent to this article, and in the 
most solemn manner, as often as you hear it read in public 
by your ministers? What, my brethren, shall I say ? — 
" Shall I praise you in this ? I praise you not."^ To me 
your conduct appears very foreign from that, in which 
there is no guile. I cannot but esteem it as highly im- 
proper, and pardon me, if I add, inexcusably criminal* 
Think not that I am become your enemy, because I tell 
yon, what appears to me, a solemn truth. Be not offended 
if I express my apprehension that you are very unreasona- 
bly under the influence of that " fear of man which 
bringeth a snare." Are you not already entangled by it, 
to the wounding of conscience ? Can you hesitate whether 
it be wrong to obey man rather than God! Rise, then, in 
all the majesty of the christian character, and of christian 
liberty. Break your bands asunder, and indignantly cast 
from you the cords with which you are bound. Like 
christian heroes solemnly protest, as so?ne of your 
brethren have nobly dared to do, against the ecclesiastical 
usurpation, to which you have too long bowed your 
necks ; and, if like them, you should be driven from the 
communion of your orthodox brethren, as unworthy the 



97 

christian name, " count it all joy, that ye fall into this 
temptation ; knowing this that the trial of your faith work- 
eth patience, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting 
nothing." 

Should Mr. T. consider any parts of his publication 
which I have reviewed, as unfairly or uncandidly treated, 
he will have the goodness, I hope, to exculpate me of 
blame, as with truth, I assure him that I have, in no 
instance, with design, done him the smallest injustice. 
But as several passages in his pamphlet appeared to me 
very obscure and ambiguous, I am not sure that I have 
not given them a wrong construction, and treated them in 
an improper manner. 

By far the greater part of his statements, I consider 
not only as incorrect, but in a high degree as erroneous ; 
nor can I doubt that any of my readers, who will be at the 
pains carefully to canvass them, and the grounds on which 
they were made, will perfectly concur with me in opinion. 

Has he proved, or even attempted to prove the incor- 
rectness of the construction I have given to scripture pas- 
sages in support of my sentiments ? Has he refuted, or 
fairly met and examined a single argument I have employ- 
ed for that purpose ? Or has he so assailed the general 
contents of my ietter, as to detect a single error, or to in- 
validate their truth : If he thinks so, we are certainly very 
& from coinciding in opinion. But should it be admitt- 
ed that he has detected errors, and even subverted my 
theory, yet he has utterly failed, I am persuaded, in his 
attempt to illustrate and establish his own. He has indeed, 
utterly failed in his attempt to exhibit it in such a manner 
as even to be understood. His readers, I must believe, 
can form no distinct idea of the character of the one God, 
of his Son, or of his Spirit, from any thing which he has 
communicated respecting them. Nor do I think that any 
two of them have the same view of his theory of the 
Trinity, farther than this, that they have no distinct view 
of the subject. Let them but ask themselves, and each 
other, " what are we to believe or think respecting the 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, according to Mr. T's. 
representations ?" and they will soon be satisfied -what 
the answer must be. 

As it is Mr. T's. " fixed determination not to consume 
his time in controversy with me, and to make no reply, 
should I see fit publicly to notice his pamphlet," I shall 
now with anxious concern for his reputation, his welf re 
and usefulness, take my leave of him with a few monitory 
hints, and I trust, in the spirit of love and real friendship. 



98 

Very seriously and solemnly do I call upon him to 
inquire of his own conscience in the presence of the 
heart- searching God, at whose tribunal he must render 
an impartial account of his conduct, whether he is sat- 
isfied from himself," with the pamphlet which he has 
lately published as to its correctness, its candour, or its 
truth ?— Whether it be consistent with an ingenuous 
and christian character, to make it a leading object of 
his letter to asperse and calumniate his brother, who has 
always treated him with marks of fraternal kindness and 
sincere friendship, without guile and prevarication ; and 
of whose truth, integrity and unimpeachable character, in 
a moral view, he can have had no just cause to doubt ? — 
Whether, after having endeavoured to destroy his charac- 
ter, and without any just reason or provocation for it, an 
impartial public will be satisfied with his silence, and 
especially after the " incorrect statements and exceptionable 
passages," in his letter are detected and exposed ! — 
Whether he wrote his pamphlet with such a temper of 
mind as he would be willing to possess on the bed of 
death, and at the day of judgment? 

In the hope, and with the earnest desirethat Mr. T. 
ferill give these monitory questions that serious and in- 
terested consideration which their nature and importance 
demand — that they may be happily instrumental of re- 
instating him in that good opinion which I once enter- 
tained of him — of removing all misunderstanding between 
us, and of preparing the way for that pleasant and im- 
proving intercourse which we formerly maintained — 
Hoping for, and earnestly desirous of these happy re- 
sults, and that the unpleasant controversy between us 
may be mutually profitable to ourselves — instrumental 
to the promotion of religious inquiry and truth, and 
to the advancement of the Redeemer's kingdom, I 
conclude with assurances of my esteem and affection 
for all, of whatever sect or denomination, who ap- 
parently love and possess the mild and beneficent 
spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ. 



APPENDIX. 



ArPENDIX No. I. for p. 4. 

HlNGHAM, NOV. 8, 1813* 

Rev. and dear Sir, 

HAVING taken the subject of your request into consideration, 
I am prepared to give the following reply : 

I have not been able to find any statement in your late pub- 
lication, entitled, " Things as they are," contrary to declara- 
tions or promises, which to my knowledge have been made on 
your part. 

1 distinctly recollect, that after your reply to Mr. Thomas 1 
letter was read at our last association, and after his explanation 
of some of his expressions, you observed, «* That you knew not 
that you should publish what you had written ; and if you should, 
you thought you should omit those passages in relation to which, 
satisfactory explanations had been given ; ' or words to this effect. 

However deeply I lament the controversy, I am constrained 
to add, that according to the best of my knowledge, I tind np 
statement respecting facts, in the aforementioned publication, 
which it not true. 

Respectfully yours, 

JOSEPH RICHARDSON. 
Rev. Jacob Norton. 



APPENDIX No. II for p. 16. 

Hingham, April 18, 1815* 

Rev. and dear Sir, 

YOUR request that I would state what I know respecting 
the sentiments of the late Rev. Dr. J. Strong, concerning the 
doctrine of the Trinity, 1 have taken into serious consideration. 
J cannot but feel regret that a dispute should arise concerning 
that subject. If, however, this statement be of any importance 
to aid the establishment of the truth, I am willing to give it. 



100 

I well recollect, that when I first heard that gentleman con- 
verse respecting the doctrine advanced in the book entitled, 
" Bible News," he advocated the representation it gave of the 
character of Christ, with zeal, and in a manner which kd me to 
conclude that he embraced it. 

However he might, during one of . two years last preceding 
his death, not have advocated that doctrine, yet he did not 
appear to me to embrace the doctrine of the Trinity, as laid 
down in the catechism of the Westminster Assembly of divines. 
I did not consider him as being a Trinitarian according to 
the common use of the term. 

Yours, with great respect, 

JOSEPH RICHARDSON. 
Rev.j Mr. Norton. 



Weymouth, March 9, 1815. 

I the subscriber, hereby testify and say, that I have the most 
satisfactory evidence from what I have heard the late Dr. Strong 
of Randolph, say, respecting the character of Jesus Christ, that 
he was not a Trinitarian, as the doctrine of the Trinity is stated 
in the Assembly's Shorter Catechism, and in the late Dr. Hop- 
kins' System of Divinity. 

ELIPHAZ THAYER. 



I the subscriber, certify all whom it may concern, that I heard 
the late Rev. Dr. Strong of Randolph, say within about a year 
of his death, that he was not a Trinitarian, — that he knew not but 
the sentiments of the Rev. Mr. Norton of Weymouth, respecting 
the doctrine of the Trinity we>e correct, and that had it not been 
that he published, (or was supposed to publish) a pamphlet 
on sin, he should be able to get along with him very well. 

EBENEZER HUNT, jun. 

Tn addition to the above testimonies in support of the truth 
of at I have said with respect to Dr. Strong's sentiments, 
hundreds might be produced, 1 doubt not, if his sentiments were 
understood, and his hearers were disposed to say what they 
know or believe concerning them. 

The testimonies exhibited, I have obtained without stepping 
aside for them, either to the right hand or the left ; nor have 
I sought for anv other. 



SERIOUS AND SOLEMN ADDRESS 

To christian churches, and to all christians whom it may 
particularly concern, on the subject of the Presbyterian 
mode qj' church government and discipline. 

ALTHOUGH I do not pretend to a thorough acquaintance 
with Presbyteriauism, yet with the general traits of its character 
I am not ignorant. These, therefore, I beg leave to exhibit to 
your view, for your awakened and interested attention. 

Tiie Presbyterian church government is the joint work of 
clergyman, and a certain number of lay-men, who decide every 
question which tomes before them by a plurality of votes. These 
la\ -men are called elders, or ruling elders. Every Presbyterian 
parish or soeiet . have several of these lay-elders chosen from 
among the members of the church. These elders, with the min- 
ister of the church, who by oj/'ce is their moderator, form an 
ecclesiastical judicatory, called the session, or court of session. 
This court hold several meetings annually, who hear and decide 
questions of an ecclesiastical nature. In these transactions, the 
brotherhood, or church as a body, have no part or voice. From 
the decisions of this court, appeals may be made to a higher court. 
This court or judicatory, iscalled the Presbytery, which consists 
of all the pastors of a certain number of churches, and one or 
more elders from each church. These elders are commissioned 
to represent, in conjunction with the ministers, the sessions of the 
respective churches. The Presbytery attend to, and act upon 
such matters as concern the particular churches within their 
limits or jurisdiction. These matters relate to the examination, 
admission, ordination and censuring of ministers ; the licensing 
of probationers or candidates to preach ; the rebuking of those 
whom they consider as worthy of rebuke ; the directing of the 
sentence ot excommunication ; the deciding upon references 
and appeals from the sessions or lower courts ; the resolving of 
cases of conscience, explaining of difficulties in doctrine or dis- 
cipline ; and the censuring of any heresy or erroneous doctrine, 
which has either been publickly, or in a more private way, main- 
tained within the bounds of their jurisdiction. 

From the judgment of the Presbytery, appeals may be made 
to a still higher court of judicatory, called the synod. This 
court meet once or twice annually, and exercise over the Pres- 
byteries within their jurisdiction, similar autl ority to that, which 
is vested in each Presbytery over the several sessions within 
their bounds. 



102 

The highest authority in the Presbyterian church of Scotland, 
(and so far as I know in Presbyterian churches in the American 
States) is the general assembly, which consists of a certain num- 
ber of ministers and elders delegated from each Presbytery. 
Appeals are brought from the lower ecclesiastical courts to this 
general assembly ; and in questions of a religious nature, no 
appeal lies from their determinations. 

Here, my brethren, you have, I believe, a just, if not a fin- 
ished portraiture of Presbyterianism. If its features are not 
repulsive, or if they harmonize with those drawn by the pencil of 
inspiration, receive and embrace it ; otherwise reject it. 

But that the ecclesiastical government which has now been 
exhibited, is widely different from that which we rind delineated 
in the gospel, I am fully persuaded. Nor do I see, how you can 
differ from me in opinion, if, abandoning human authority and 
device, you take the New Testament scriptures as your only rule 
of judging. In these scriptures not a single lineament of the 
Presbyterian system of government and discipline, it is confident- 
ly believed, is to be found. Where, in the New Testament code, 
do you find a model of ecclesiastical government, to which this 
bears a resemblance ? Where do you rind a single example or 
precept, which favours the establishment of three or four distinct 
judicatories in the christian church, to the exclusion of the 
brotherhood or private members from all share in ecclesiastical 
discipline and concerns ? Or where do you find any authority for 
the establishment of lay elders in the church ! Vain, I am 
persuaded, will be your appeal to the New Testament, to sup- 
port either the form, or the spirit of Presbyterian government. 
Have we, christian brethren, no divine model of church order 
aud government ? This, I would presume, you will not say* 
Shall we then conform to this model, or shall we enact and submit 
to laws of expediency and discretion ? If to the latter, do you not 
see that private members of the church will be liable to become 
the slaves and dupes of their spiritual rulers, and to bow submis- 
sively to their decrees, as the decrees of Heaven ? Do you not 
perceive that the door would be flung widely open to ambitious 
men to impose on the simplicity of the multitude, and to 
promote schemes for their own aggrandisement, under the spe- 
cious cover of ardent zeal for orthodoxy, and wholesome religious 
discipline ! Such men as Diotrephes, would always assume the 
pre-eminence, and give you proofs, which you would not be 
likely to forget, of their aptitude to govern, and of the infallibility 
of their government. Many such men have existed in the chris- 
tian church. Nor ouglit you to be unmindful that human na» 
ture is essentially the same now, as in times past. 

But if we have a divine model of church order aud government, 
why should we not adopt aud adhere to it ? In doing this, should 
we not act agreeably to our profession as christians, aud practi- 
cally say that we esteem the laws of Christ as more excellent and 
authoritative, than the laws of fallible, ambitious, and aspiring 
men ? What then is the model of ecclesiastical order and l>ov- 
erument, as exhibited in the New Testament scriptures ? Agree- 



103 

ably to this model, must it not be admitted that a congregation 
of professing christians meeting in one place for religious wor- 
ship, is a complete church, having competent power to do every 
thing relative to religious government within itself, and amena- 
ble to no other church or ecclesiastical tribunal on earth ? What 
evidence have we that the primitive and aposiolic churches were 
either national, provincial, Presbyterian, or sy nodical, or conso- 
ciated for the purpose of religious government and discipline ? 
Although there were many believers and professing christians in 
Judea, in Galilee, in Samaria, in Macedonia, in Galatia, &c. 
yet we have no intimation that a collective church of either of the 
above descriptions existed. The particular societies of christians 
in those districts are represented as so many distinct and inde- 
pendent churches. In the apostolic age, bishops, pastors, or 
elders, were so far from presiding over, or managing the affairs of 
more churches than one, that a plurality of these officers, in 
6ome instances, if not in all, presided over the same church. 
The church of Jerusalem, of Antioch, of Corinth, ofCenchrea, 
a port of Corinth, and other churches, met together in one place,, 
and at the same time. Nor does it appear that he who was a 
member of one of these churches, was a member of any other, or 
under the jurisdiction of any other. 

Who that reads with due attention the monitory addresses 
made to the seven churches of Asia, but must be convinced that 
these churches were independent of each other, with respect to 
religious government and discipline ? Do we in these addresses 
find the censurable faults of one of the churches charged on the 
others, or either of the others ? But had they been established on 
a Presbyterian platform, or had they been consociated for discipli- 
nary purposes, all the churches, we may reasonably believe, 
would have been admonished and censured for the faulty and 
delinquent conduct of each. 

Independency or Congregationalism is taught not only in the 
monitory addresses to these Asiatic churches, but in what is said 
everv where in the New Testament concerning all the churches. 

This is particularly, and as it appears to me, very clearly taught- 
by the rule which our Saviour established for settling an offence 
occasioned by a' brother or member of a church. " Moreover, 
if thv brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his 
fault, between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou 
hast gained thy brother, but if he will not hear thee, then take 
with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three 
witnesses, every word may be established ; and if he shall neglect 
to hear them, tell it unto the church ; but if he neglect to hear 
the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man, and a pub- 
lican. " Here the last appeal is to the church ; Christ does not 
direct the offended partv to take the offender to a church session, 
a i^esbvtery, or to a synod ; but to the church, to all the broth- 
erhood of which it is composed. If Christ had intended by 
church anv Presbvterian ecclesiastical court, to which of them 
does he refer ? If to the session, then all higher appeals are cut 
off; for if the offending brother will not hear the church, he is 



104 

to be accounted as an heathen man and a publican. But if 
Christ referred to a general synod or assembly, then all interior 
courts are cut off. Must not his direction then, or the rule 
which he established, be totally incompatible with Presbyterian 
principles and practice ? 

The independency of individual churches is, it should seem, 
fully supported by the injunctions of the apostles tor their direc- 
tion respecting the discipline of Christ's house. According to 
these injunctions, the whole church a*e to receive members. 
«' Hi n that is weak in the faith, receive ye" Can members be 
received into christian fellowship according- to this direction on 
the Presbyterian plan ? The epistle to the Corinthians is ad- 
dressed to the church of God at Corinth, which co sisted not of 
ministers and lay-elders, but of " them that are sanctified in 
Christ Jesus, called to be saints.'* But we find that the power of 
discipline and excommunication, was vested in the whole church. 
Agreeably, the apostle thus addresses them, " In the name of 
the Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my 
spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ ; to deliver such 
an one (an incestuous member) unto Satan, &c." " Do not ye 
judge them that are within ? therefore put away from among 
yourselves that wicked person." Of the excommunicated pei>oa 
the same apostle observes, " sufficient to such a man is the 
punishment which was inflicted of many," the whole church. 
The restoration also of an excommui irated member, upon his 
repentance and reformation, is also the duty of the whole church, 
*« Ye ought," says the apostle, addressing the members collec- 
tively, " rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps 
such an one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. 
Wherefore, I beseech you, that ye would confirm your love to- 
wards him." 

In these, and other instances, " the instructions and commands 
given, necessarily suppose the constitution of the church to winch 
they were directed, to have been independent ; for to no other 
could thay have been applied ; in no other could they have 
been executed." 

In comparison with this simple constitution, which, in this 
respect, is like all other divine institutions, how complicate and 
perplexing is the machinery of Presbyterian government ! To 
settle difficulties which arise in churches, and to transact other 
ecclesiastical affairs, is it necessary to institute a variety of judi- 
catories, and that representatives from different churches far 
remote from each other, in every part of the state, and perhaps 
of all the states in the union, should hold meetings, and at a 
great expense ? Is there any thing in this, which bears a resem- 
blance to the simplicity of the institution of churches which you 
find in the gospel, or any of the institutions of the gospel ? And 
what, my brethren, can you find in the transactions of a general 
synod or assembly, which could not have been done by an indi- 
vidual church, with legitimate authority — without parade, pomp 
and expense, to quite as good, and probably to much better 
purpose ? 



105 

In this connexion permit; me to ask, did not the apostlesof 
our Lord, in the constitution of churches, act by his authority? 
Can the form of church government, then, which they instituted, 
be treated with neglect — can it be rejected, or can it be infringed, 
witnout offence to the great Head of ihe church ? As well may we 
thus treat any other apostolic institution, as that of church gov* 
ernment. Nor can we add any thing to the divine model, nor 
take any thing from it, which will not mar the beauty, and en- 
feeble the strength of the simple and well proportioned edifice. 
" We have no such" legitimate " custom, neither the" pure 
** churches of God." 

Will the advocates for a Presbyterian form of church govern- 
ment refer you to the convocation or meeting mentioned in the 
15th chapter of the Acts, as the impregnable bulwark or Presbyt- 
ery ? But I pray you, christian brethren, carefully to read and 
seriously to ponder the whole history of that event, and then say, 
whether you discover in it any trace of the Presbyterian form of 
church government. Do you here find any evidence of a subor- 
dination of ecclesiastical courts? Do you tind any intimation 
that the subject in question had been canvassed and tried by a 
church session ? that it was then carried to a Presbytery, and 
that from the Presbytery an appeal had been made to the suppos- 
ed synod or general assembly convened at Jerusalem ? As it is 
not so much as intimated that either of the two first mentioned 
courts had attended to the subject in debate, pr that such courts 
existed, we have no evidence that the meeting at Jerusalem was a 
Presbyterian synod or geueral assembly, besides, if an appeal 
had been made from a Presbytery, the letter of the church of 
Jerusalem, instead of having been addressed to the brethren, as 
it really was, would have been addressed to the Presbytery of 
Antioch, had such a Presbytery existed. But as tie letter was 
addressed to the brethren of the church collectively, it ma-, with 
much confidence be inferred, that there was no Presbytery to be 
addressed. 

" By what authority is the meeting at Jerusalem called a 
synod ? Who were the members that com posed it ? Were they 
not the apostles, the elders, and the brethren of the church at 
Jerusalem only f Was there a single representative, either min- 
ister or elder, from any other church upon earth ?" We have 
not the least evidence that this was the ca>e ; but the most satis- 
factory evidence that no members of foreign churches were to be 
found in that meeting or Assembly. We have no evidence then 
that the meeting or assembly composed a Presbyterian synod. 

But should } on be told, christian brethren, thai at the present 
day, and under existing circumstances, the Presby erian mode of, 
government is expedient and useful, and ought therefore to be 
adopted — I pray you very seriously to inquire whether you can 
think it either expedient or useful to yourselves, who are ( hrisi's 
freemen, to be deprived of \our christian liberty, and be entan- 
gled in the yoke of bondage ? — whether it is expedient or useful 
to adopt a form of church government, which affords stong 
incitements to ambition, and powerful temptation* to the exercise 

O 



106 

of severe ecclesiastical tyranny and oppression ? which appar- 
ently implies a distrust of the wisdom of Chris) and his apostlts ; 
and a leaning to your own understanding ? In short, can you 
think it expedient or useful to abandon the scriptural form' of 
church government, and adopt one of human device, which is 
calculated to generate and foster a violent spirit of party, intem- 
perate zeal, a most unreasonable attachment to human forms and 
creeds ; and which will be likely to substitute the form for the 
power of godliness, and to preserve the name of orthodoxy at the 
expense of christian love, and its mild and beneficent cjjects ! 
If to do this be not expedient and useful, examine I beseech 
you, the history of synods, &c. whether papal or prottstant, and 
act with caution ; — guard against every departure from the 
gospel standard, and remain firm and steadfast in that lib- 
erty whereby Christ has made you free. 

What possible advantage can you hope to derive to yourselves 
from adopting a Presbyterian mode of government and disci- 
pline ? Or what advantage will be gained to the cause of Christ's 
kingdom, by a departure from his laws and authority ? " Force 
ma. mike hypocrites ; but will never make a christian. A law 
of Synod may prevent a minister from preaching supposed heret- 
ical doctrines ; but it will be far from enabling him to preach the 
truth as it is in Jesus. A law of synod may give splendour to a 
supposed orthodox faith ; but this faith may occasion the reign of 
midnight darkness — of darkness which may be felt. It is indeed 
a melancholy fact that the orthodoxy, which stands in humau 
creeds, formularies, and confessions, has but too often operated 
very greatly towards the extinguishment of the benevolent and 
charitable spirit, of pure and underiled Christianity ; and to the 
blighting, and even destruction of its fair, and pleasant, and 
salutary fruits. — Consider these things well ; seriously ponder 
them in your hearts, and suffer yourselves to be suitably in- 
fluenced by them. 

But you will say, perhaps, that it is not your design to adopt 
a Presbyterian mode of government — that you are opposed to it, 
and will never submit your necks to the yoke. Nor can I 
doubt that you would be prepared to say this, were you well 
acquainted with the nature and results of that government. But 
if it is not your. design to become Presbyterians, do you think it 
would be expedient or justifiable to choose elders from among 
your brethren, who are now on the footing of equality with your- 
selves ? Is it not possible that this step, should it once be taken, 
will lead you whither you know not— into a labyrinth, from 
which, however desirous of it, you may never be able to retrace 
your unadvised and precipitate course ? The part of wisdom 
requires that you act deliberately and with jealous caution in this 
important affair. 

But von have heen told, perhaps, that in creating elders in the 
churches of which von are members, you will act agreeably to 
the constitution of apostolical churches. But is it certain that 
this will rca/l./ be the case ? So far from it, that you will act, I 



107 

am persuaded, in direct repugnance to the constitution of 
those churches. 

That there were elders in those churches, is not to be denied. 
But did they sustain the office of lay-elders in Presbyterian 
churches, or the office of elders like those wnbm you may have it 
in contemplation to create ? This is not to be admitted. Their 
office was that of pastors, bishops, or shepherds. The words 
elder and bish>p, are in the original, " perfect!) interchangeable, 
and constantly applied to the same officers in the church." And 
these officers are called upon, without exception, to " feed ihe 
flock, arid to take the oversight of it, &c." and they are all 
required to be "fit to teach." Hence it follows that it there 
were lay-elders in the primitive churches, there must also have 
been in them /ay-bishops or pastors ; that is, men, ivhu sustained 
the pastoral ojj>ce, and yet were not pastors I 

Lay-eiders are no where found in scripture*. The apostles 
indeed ordained eldeis in every church, and these elders are once 
denominated Presbytery ; but with relation only to the churches 
over which they were ordained as bishops or pastors. By 
Presbytery, then, is evidently intended the eldership or pastors 
of a particular church or congregation. " Nor is there the 
least foundation in scripture to suppose, that this Presbytery of 
a particular church, were made up of what are called lay-elders 
and a pastor." 

1 know of but one passage in the New Testament from which any 
person would be likely to infer the existence of lay-eldership in 
the apostolic churches. The passage to which 1 allude, is 1 Tim. 
v. 17. n Let the elders that rule well be accounted worth) 01 
double honour, especially they who labour in word and doctrine." 
Here two soits of elders seem to be designated. But that they 
were different in rank or office, will not be admitted. 1 he sense 
of the text I am persuaded is this, '< Let the pastors or bishops, 
whose peculiar gift is especially adapted to the government of 
the church, be accounted worthy of ail due honour or mainte- 
nance ; but let those pastors or bishops who excel in preaching 
talents, and are much engaged in the exercise of those talents, 
have still greater honour or maintenance. "---Agreeably, theApostle 
adds, " For the scripture saith, thou shait not muzzle the ox that 
treadeth out the corn ;" that is, " the labourer is worthy of his 
hire." 

Besides, as the elders in the primitive churches were ordained 
by the apostles, so they were vested with, and exercised the power 
of ordination. But are the elders whom you may have it in 
contemplation to create, to be ordained, aid to be vested with 
the power of ordination ! If not, you will make no pretension, I 
trust, in creating lay-elders, to an adherence to the model of the 
primitive christian churches. 

If such are not the elders you are about to create, what ore 
they, and to what end are they to be created ? Are they, in con- 
nexion with their pastors to be invested with power to maintain 
the government and discipline of the churches, and to manage 
their affairs, to the exclusion of the rest of the brethren ? But can 



108 

yon delegate to them this authority, without relinquishing a great 
and precious privilege — without treating with neglect and con- 
tempt au important and iudispensable duty ? Is it not a great 
and precious privilege to be a member — an active member of 
Christ's king lorn with respect to its disciplinary laws and con- 
cerns? But cm you relinquish this privilege without abandoning 
your duty ? in doing this, you will place yourselves in a situation 
in which it will not be in your power to follow the directions of 
the apostles, nor practically to regard the authority of Christ, 
with respect to the most important affairs of his house or king- 
dom. Although you may be willing to give up all right or con- 
cern in church atfairs, I see not how you can do it consistently 
with the discharge of those important duties which are indispensa- 
bly incumbent on you as the visible members of Christ's church. 
Can you discharge the duty of prayer, of reading the scriptures, 
of attending on public worship, and of communion at the Lord's 
table by proxy, or in the person of your neighbour i How then 
can you discharge your obligation with respect to the concerns of 
the church, of which >ou are members, should you resign 
your power to do this, into the hands of others ? 

Before you thus act, solemnly pause — seriously weigh the 
subject — diligently search the New Testament scriptures — en- 
deavour to ascertain what is the will of Christ — And let me 
entreat you not to deviate from it, either to the right hand or left, 
under the plea of expediency, or of promoting the cause of ortho- 
doxy, or religion, or the glory of God ! By such deviation will 
you no- be likely to defeat all these great and important pur- 
poses ? How long shall human wisdom be opposed to the wisdom 
of God ? Let us, abandoning all these idle and delusive dreams, 
strictly adhere to the word of God. If we but do this, we need 
be under no apprehension that he will not take care of, and 
provide for the success of his own cause, and the prosperity of his 
church and people. Let us remember that it is not by human 
devices that we can subserve the interest of the Redeemer's 
kingdom, or submit to his authority. " It is only in proportion 
as christian churches renounce human wisdom, and follow the 
footsteps of the hrst churches, that they are likely to grow and 
increase in a desirable manner. By refusing to obey the laws 
which the wisdom of God has provided lor the prosperity of the 
kingdom, they my their own comfort and edification, cast a 
stumbling block before the world, and subject themselves to 
divine reprehension." 

But you have, perhaps, been told that in choosing elders for 
the management of church affairs, you will but act agreeably to 
the Cambridge Platform, or " the platform of church discipline," 
formed and adopted " by the elders and messengers of the 
churches of Massachusetts Province, in the year 1648 — that this 
plat (orm admits of eldership in churches, and is friendly to the 
Preftbvterian form of government ; and that we may safely tread 
in the steps of our pious and venerable ancestors." All this has 
been urged, it may be, as an argument in favour of the measure 
you may have it in contemplation to adopt. — Yet before yon 



109 

suffer it to influence your conduct, you ought to consider, that 
however pious and venerable were the conduci and character of 
our ancestors, they have not so strong a claim to our respect and 
imitation, as apostolic precept and example. We are to call no 
uninspired man or body of men, father, in a religious view ; nor 
to imitate their conduct, further than they walked by gospel rule. 

Were our ancestors Presbyterians, or advocates for that kind 
of eldership in churches, which exclude the brotherhood from 
taking an active part in church discipline, yet we are, 1 am 
persuaded, no more to copy from them in this respect, than 
from their unjustifiable religious intolerance and persecutions. 

But the fact is, they were not Presbyterians ; nor were they 
advocates for the eldership in question. Their mode of church 
government as exhibited in the platform, is strictly congregation- 
al. " The officers," in the primitive christian churches according 
to the platform, ** were either extraordinary, or ordinary ; or- 
dinary as elders and deacons. The apostles, prophets, and 
evangelists, as they were called, extraordinarily by Christ, so their 
office ended with themselves. Whence it is that Paul, directing 
Timothy how to carry along church administrations, giveth no 
direction about the choice or course of apostles, prophets, or 
evangelists ; but only of elders (pastors) and deacons ; and when 
Paul was to take his last leave of the church of Ephesus, he 
committed the care of feeding the church to no other, but unto 
the elders of the church. The like charge doth Peter commit to 
the elders. - " — " Of elders, who are also in scripture called bish* 
eps, some attend chiefly to the ministry of the word, as the pastors 
and teachers ; others attend especially unto rule, who are there- 
fore called ruling elders." The power of office in elders, or rul- 
ing elders, extends, agreeably to the platform to " the admission 
of members, approved by the church ; to the ordination of officers 
chosen by the church ; to the feeding of the flock of God, and 
to the imposition of hands in the ordination of other elders." 

" It is natural unto a church body, to be furnished with suffi- 
cient power for its own preservation and subsistence." 

" The government of the church is a mixed government. In 
respect of Christ, the head and king of the church, and the 
sovereign power residing in him, and exercised by him, it is a 
monarchy, in respect of the body or brotherhood of the church, 
and power from Christ granted unto them, it resembles a democ~ 
racy ; and in respect of the Presbytery (pastors) and power com- 
mitted unto them, it is an aristocracy." " The power granted 
by Christ unto the body of the church and brotherhood, is a pre- 
rogative or privilege, which the church doth exercise. 1. In 
choosing their own officers whether elders (pastors) or deacons, 
f. In admission of their own members; and therefore there is. 
g'-eat reason they should have power to remove any from their 
fellowship again, &c." " In case an elder (pastor) offend incor- 
rigibly, the matter so requiring, as *he church had power to call 
him to office, so thev have power, according to order, to remove 
him from office ; and being mow but a member, in case of con- 
ttunacy to his sin, the church that had power to receive him into- 



110 

their fellowship, hath also the same power to cast him out, that 
they have concerning any other member.* 1 " ii belongs unto 
the elders (pastors) to examine an) officers or members before 
they be received of the church ; to receive the accusations 
brought to the church, and to prepare them for the church's 
hearing. In handling of offences, and oilier matters before the 
church, they have power to declare, aid publish the council aud 
will of God, touching the same, ai.d to pronounce sentence v\ ith 
consent of the church." 

" The scripture not only calls elders labourers, and workmen, 
but also speaking of them doth say, thar the labourer is worthy 
of his hire ; and requires that he which is taught in the word, 
should communicate to him in all good things ; and mentions it 
as an ordinance of the Lord, that they which preach the gospel, 
should live of the gospel." 

Christian churches, according to the platform, "have not 
dominion one over another." ** They have no more authority 
one over another, than one apostle had over another." IS or have 
6ynods any power " to exercise church censures in way of dis- 
cipline, nor any other act of church authority, or jurisdiction, 
which that presidential synod, Acts 15, did forbear." And in 
synods " the presence of any brethren in the churches is not to 
be excluded." 

When " the elders and other messengers of the churches were 
assembled in Boston, in the year i6r>2," to consider certain 
*' questions propounded to them by order of the honourable 
General Court, the following is among their answers : — *• Every 
church or particular congregation of visible saints, in gospel 
order, being furnished with a Presbytery, (pastors) at least with a 
teaching elder, hath received from the Lord Jesus full powei aid 
authority ecclesiastical within itseif, regularly to administei all 
the ordinances of Christ, and is not under any other ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction whatever." " Hence it follows that cousociatioi of 
churches is not to hinder the exercise of this power, &* ." 

The above quotations from the Cambridge platform must 
convince you, christian brethren, that our pious and venerable 
ancestors were very far from being Presbyterians. They were 
conscientiously and very decidedly opposed to the Presbyterian 
form of government, and as strongly attached to Congregational- 
ism, or that independency of churches for which I plead. On 
their principles lay-eldership, which would interfere with the right 
and power of the brotherhood to act in the disciplinary affairs of 
Christ's kingdom, was inadmissible. 

" The instituting of officers in the church," (elders or pastors, 
and deacons) they observe " is the work of God himself, of the 
Lord Jesus Christ, of the Holy Ghost ; and therefore such 
officers as he hath not appointed, are altogether unlawful either 
to be placed in the church, or to be retained therein, and are to 
be looked at as human creatures, mere inventions, and appoint- 
ments of men, to the great dishonour of Christ Jesus, the Lord of 
his house, the king of his church, &c." 



Ill 

I have been thus particular in exhibiting to your view the. 
sentiments and practice of our fbretathers in relation to church 
government and discipline, as stated in the Cambridge platform, 
that improper and misleading impressions on your minds respect- 
ing the subject might be effaced, if such impressions, from any 
source, have been made. And that you may not act in the dark, 
nor under any misguiding influence, open jour eyes, I beseech 
you, to the steady, clear, and the true light which the gospel affords 
with respect to the constitution and disciplinary laws of Christ's 
kingdom. Walk by this light, and your steps will be directed 
unto the path of truth and safety. But remember that if ye 
" walk in the light of your own lire, and in the sparks of your 
own kindling,' 1 you must expect that the result will be as the 
" crackling of thorns under a pot" — a violent and tumultuary- 
blaze, followed by deep obscurity. 

If you are desirous to purge out the old leaven from among 
yourselves, so as to become a new lump, you will practically regard 
the admonition of our pious ancestors " assembled at Boston, 
1662, " on " the necessity of reformation." 

You will be careful to mortify "the pride — the spiritual pride 
that doth abound." — You will oppose and abandon " human 
inventions aud will worship." — You will suppress " inordinate 
passions ; sinful lusts and hatreds ; evil surmisings, uncharitable 
and unrighteous censures, backbitings, hearing and telling 
tales," &c. You will frown indignantly on " false reports, and 
walking with slanders and reproaches, and that sometimes against 
the most faithful and eminent servants of God." And instead 
of human creeds and interpretations, you will consider " the 
infallible rule of interpretation of scripture, to be the scripture 
itself; and therefore when there is a question about the true and 
full sense of any scripture, it must be searched and known by 
other places, that speak more clearly." 

Thus it becomes us all to unite heart, and head, and hand, in 
endeavouring to promote a reformation in the church, which will 
make her " look forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as 
the sun, beautiful as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem, and terrible 
as an army with banners." Such a reformation would render our 
churches unspeakably more excellent in the view of God, and all 
consideiate men — it would render them unspeakably more ser- 
viceable to the interest of pure and underiled religion, than the 
most correct orthodoxy, as established by human creeds and con- 
fessions, and all the devices invented by weak and fallible men. 

Various are the ways in which the natural pride of the human 
heart is discovered ; nor is it strange that good men should 
sometimes be so far under its influence as to lean rather to their 
own understandings, than to the infallible word of God, and thus 

entangle themselves with error and hurtful devices. Let us then 

carefully guard against this evil. And that we may effectually 
do it, let the holy scriptures, and not men of like passions with 
ourselves, be our counsellors. — Let us highly prize, diligently 
consult them, and resolutely follow their dictates, how much 
soever it may expose us to calumny and reproach. Nor let us fear 



112 

any imputation of heresy which this course may bring upon us. 
Let us prize the smallest scripture truth with respect to Jesus 
Christ and the laws of his kingdom, as unspeakably more prec- 
ious than all the dogmas of ortnodox men and exclusive chris- 
tians — than all the reputation for sanctity which these can give 
us — than even '• mountains of gold and rocks of diamond/' 
Like the noble Bereans, let us search the scriptures for ourselves. 
Let us do this prayerfully, and with minds open to conviction, 
and "judge even of our own selves what is right," and regulate 
our conduct accordingly, *' although bonds and afflictions may 
abide us." Thus let us humbly wait at the feet of Jesus— 
learn wisdom from his word, and obey his laws.— Then may 
we reasonably hope, that " light will arise in obscurity, 
and our darkness be as the noon day." 



FINIS. 






u 

/A 
/A 

\y 





THINGS AS THEY ARE; 

Trimtarianism Developed. 

SECOND PART. 

<N RKPLY TO A 

^Letter written by Rev. Darnel Thomas* a. m. of Abington 



TOGETHER WITH 



X\ Remarks oa Or. EmraohV germo* at the lastallation of<Hf 
M> Rev. Holland Weeks. 

S2 



tO WHICH IS ARDEB, 



* 

i 



SOLEMN AND SERIOUS ADDRESS 

VToChmnan Chorches.and to „1. Christian* wnom it mavO 

# part,,, larly courcr.,. o, ,|* S ,, r ,,ect ofthe P.e s hue ™ ? X 

/ mode ol Church fJoi/u«,r..J... _...i it.- /"V'eiiaa w 



vy 

vy 



mode ot Church Government and Online. 



by Jacob Norton a m 

Pastor of tfc Fim Religious Society £ Weymouth 



Boston i 
Printed tor the Author, 

*Y UNCOLN .& EDMKVD8, No. 53 COHKHItL. 
lb 15 





• 



^>*^«*v\y»v\/<^\A/»,*v , ,/ , ( . 



«+£ 



Shortly will be pubjishc-?, 

MR. NORTON'S. SELECT WORKS, 

And for sale by 



St ^ ^ -/\**./\a>', 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proces 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnologie 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATK 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



~/// 



<L«C< 



< <t. C(<C 






« 

: < ' « 
:c c<r 
v <<r 

... r«: 

Jr <x<L<rr 



«- C • i 

c < 
re: c « 



C eco 






< <<cr c 









tr. co 


< 




• ^: \ I 


: //■ s- « 


C i 
r< r 

<«x c « 
■■< < <r c 


< 


i 


c ■ 


c 


's_ 







. C.ccCC 



CLCCCC 

<Lccccc . 



- Ccc 

. 'C<f<\ 
< c 

«Xc r , 

< c 
re < r r 



■ OCX c 

<- <r<rc c <: 

< <* * 

« <rcc.c <r <: 






r * 


o < 4C C < 


.«■■ 


c" 4C C C 


<r< 


<c ■ ( 


C 


<C C C 



• c c 

cC CC. 



<c < 

<C c> 
T Cc 



<r c 
cc c 

« c 



«c 

cCC 

« 

cc c 



C <tfC< 

C r«Tt 



c 
< CC 

< <*src 



C C4K 



X c0t~ c&t 



c <«r?c 



^crccjfCi' 



.c «c < cc ccec • 

c cc «c*cc«r 
< cc < < c«r < 

: «cc< cc <r« 

«C<< « :C «iK"Ci cc 
>C «CC -CC -C \-:«C *C V cc , 

«*£c cc C^cfX cc 
esaox: c c 
: <?*cc;x 



c<.c 




CC 


( 


c r 


f 


CC 


c ( 


CcC 


c c 


C i 


< ( 


ere 




cc 




' c< 


< 




< 


r v 


r"7 






c< 


CC 


<c 


c 


cc 



cc 

c <cc 

c <u 

r cc ( 

M CCc ■ 

'< CCc 

< «:< 



<£<C'K. 

" <ZC< < C 

^CCC < < 

c cr c 

7 re cc 



~ CC< rc« 

■rr ' c*r • « 

csfii'ccc crc<rcc 
' ^t<cc< <rc«scc cc c 



«c ••<:<<:< c«m cc r 
<®»r_c«rc cc«?c< cr 

C <«CC cc« 



L ••■C; C CC C 

C <SL C 

«: r 

r CCc"' 

c<cc <■« 

c <«c c < , 
«Cc <- 

<sTC c^ 

<dC CCc. 

"~ < 53CC 



^^ < €~C 


^tfT 


'<■ rf' 


*^- c <C Cj « 


:^6 


cc 


{ ?, 


c_ <^c C cc <c< 


:x<c 


• 


*?' C < ci <-K< 
C C CC< <€* 


<: c «• 


c 


<r <- * 


C 


C < (C.CCC 


C 


C c ■ • < v 


cc «j 


r <*. 


^<^ - ■ u< 


r"c « 


:« < 


C <-r c re < « 






"■ <r< < c 


<cr ' 


C 


CX c c 


<fi:_ 


c < 


cc < <: c 


«: 


c < 


- c< c c <r< c i 


«^T 


c C 


- rv < c Cfr c 


<«c 


< 


CC( c<L 


C < 


: C 


" 3Tc c: 


«: 


c ^ 


<^t c <r <- 




i 


^O;-. ccic< 


< 


c 


^^.- CCCC <« 


< 


c 



c C c C 






«c 


c 


'C 


r-c 


.'. 


m 


< 


■xr 


<s 


c 


c<' 


<c? 


c 


■r 




c 

c 


? 



